DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because they are tied to a particular machine that consists of a drill string with LWD sensors and surface sensors. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The drill string does not implement the steps of the method and is merely a field of use limitation (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). The sensors do not contribute at all to the limitation from a 101 perspective. The language of the current claim requires that the “first data” and “second data” that is imported from first/second databases be a specific type of data. However, nothing in the claims requires the step of collecting the data or the actual positive structure of the sensors. The limitation merely narrows the type of data imported from the databases.
Applicant argues that the specific “visualization” is not generic data displaying. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is not enough detail in the claim. The claim merely recites displaying a visual representation alongside other data. First, it is unclear what constitutes a visual representation and second, there is not specific details as to how the information is displayed “alongside” each other.
Applicant argues that their invention should not be rejected under 101 because it provides “an unconventional improvement in the in the computerized and dynamic method for real-time logging while drilling (LWD) profile prediction.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. All additional elements (i.e., limitations that are not abstract ideas) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application according to the courts and/or the MPEP. The claim language is not specific enough to have the abstract idea meaningfully integrated into a positively recited physical transformation.
Applicant argues that the claims involve more than performance of well-know, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industries. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone as discussed in the rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the visualization interface showing the predicted LWD profile in the offset interval, actual LWD profiles, and drilling parameters at depth need to be shown alongside each other. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed application does not disclose displaying the predicted LWD profiles along a specific offset interval alongside actual LWD profiles and drilling parameters at depth.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, it is unclear what “visually represents the predicted LWD profiles” means. It is unclear if the actual predicted values are shown or if the data is transformed and presented in some different way. “Visually represents” does not mean that the actual data is being presented, merely something that in some way “represents the data.”
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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 Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including:
“(c) removing records within the second data of drilling parameters with ROP, WOB, RPM and torque values of less than or equal to zero by applying filters to drilling parameters in real time;
(d) converting second data in time to depth by calculating statistical attributes of said drilling parameters in time contained in specific intervals and having constant depth spacing;
(e) combining said drilling parameters converted to depth in step (d) with the LWD profile data imported in step (a) using depth as a reference;
(g) performing inferences to predict each said LWD profile with each LWD profile’s respective model using training features in an interval corresponding to a current depth of a drill up to the respective offset limits; and
(h) periodically checking whether there has been progress in drilling, if so repeating step (g), performing new inferences with respect to the new data.”
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. More specifically, other than reciting “a computer implemented method” nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of:
(a) importing, by a drilling system comprising a drill string, first data of LWD profiles in depth from LWD sensors arranged at depth profile offsets on the drill string from an available first database;
(b) importing, by the drilling system, second data of drilling parameters from the surface sensors coupled to a drilling system in time from an available second database, the second data comprises drilling parameters with rate of penetration (ROP), weighted drill (WOB), and revolutions per minute (RPM);
(f) training, by the drilling system, machine learning models, based on supervised regressions, for each said LWD profile with the first database above each respective depth offset;
(h) periodically checking, by the drilling system, whether there has been progress in drilling, if so, repeating step (f) by training the models with any new data; and
(i) sending, by the drilling system, the results of each new prediction to a third database;
(j) continuously updating the machine learning models in real-time as new drilling data is received to maintain predictive accuracy despite changing geological conditions; and
(k) displaying , by the drilling system, the predicted LWD profiles in a real-time visualization interface that visually represents the predicted LWD profiles in the offset interval from the drill tip to the limit of the depth profile offsets along actual LWD profiles and drilling parameters, enabling comparison between predicted and actual values to validate drilling decisions.
The training of the machine learning models (originally in step (f) and in the repeat step (h)) and continuously updating the machine learning model (i.e., retraining in step (j)) are recited at a high level of generality, and, as applied, are a tool used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, and therefore amount to “apply it.”
“Importing first data of LWD profiles in depth from an available first database,” “importing second data of drilling parameters in time from an available second database, the second data comprises drilling parameters with rate of penetration (ROP), weighted drill (WOB), and revolutions per minute (RPM),” “sending the results of each new prediction to a third database,” and “displaying the predicted LWD profiles in a real-time visualization interface that visually represents the predicted LWD profiles in the offset interval from the drill tip to the limit of the depth profile offsets along actual LWD profiles and drilling parameters, enabling comparison between predicted and actual values to validate drilling decisions” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“[A] drilling system comprising a drill string” merely links the method to a particular technical environment or field of use.
Examiner notes that the type of data being imported (i.e., from LWD sensors arranged at depth profiles offsets on the drill string and/or surface sensors coupled to ta drilling system) merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. The limitation recited is for “importing” data. The fact that the data was collected by specific sensors is not relevant since the claim does not include the limitation of using the sensors to collect the data and then transmit the data to the first/second databases.
The additional element of a visualization interface is recited at a high level of generality, and, as applied, are a tool used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, and therefore amount to “apply it.” Examiner notes that the “visualization interface” is not further defined in the specifications.
Examiner further notes that step (h) is conditional and not required since it would only be performed if there has been progress in drilling. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution the step will be fully analyzed under 101.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements of the machine learning model and the visualization interface). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner notes that while step (f) requires the training of the machine learning model to be “based on supervised regression” the claim language does not define the relationship. “Based on” is an extremely broad and generic term and does not actually require supervised regression when training the model and does not define any relationship between the training of the machine learning model and the supervised regression.
Regarding the recited processes in steps (a), (b), and (i) (i.e., importing from a database and sending to a database), “importing” and “sending” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated and transmitting/receiving the data. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The “drill string” merely link the method to a particular technical environment or field of use. As it merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use it fails add an inventive concept to the claim. This limitation represents a mere token acquiescence to limiting reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the recited process step in (j) (i.e., displaying data), instructions to display data on a display are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as the limits amount to selecting a particular type of data and displaying it. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network and then displaying the data after it is analyzed is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
In the current case there is not enough specificity as to what is being displayed since it is merely using the visualization interface to display something that “represents” the predicted LWD profiles. Furthermore, there is uncertainty as to what the boundaries of the limitation are as discussed in relation to the 112 rejections above.
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 2-3 recite “the target LWD profiles comprise layers (labels) in step (f)” and “in step (g) characteristics of statistical attributes of drilling parameters comprise torque, weight on drill (WOB), rate of penetration (ROP), revolutions per minute (RPM), MSE (mechanical specific energy), pumping pressure (SPP), drilled phase, drill type, drill run, or combination thereof” which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer which are recited at a high level of generality, and, as applied, are a tool used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, and therefore amount to “apply it” and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 5 recites “training of the models is supervised by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) porosity profiles via regression, supervised by descriptions available in Exata via classification, or both” which is an abstract idea. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 6-9 recite “automatically adjusting drilling parameters of the drill based on the predated LWD profiles to optimize the drilling operation;” the constant depth spacing is approximately 0.1524 meters;” “the periodically checking in step (h) occurs approximately every minute;” and “the depth profile offsets range from approximately 3 meters to several dozen meters from the drill tip” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Claim 10 recites “the LWD profiles predicted include neutron (NEU) profiles” which is an abstract idea. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 11-14 recite “the method is applied to different LWD profiles in drilled phases of pre-salt reservoirs and salt phases” “the filters applied in step (c) include a drilling mode filter to preserve only data from drilling moments;” “the first database further comprises profiles acquired via wireline, gas chromatography, and categorical information including drill types, drilling fluid, and lithology;” and “the drilling parameters further include Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) calculated from the drilling parameters” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Claims 15-18 recite “the machine learning models are based on a Gradient Boosting structure;” “the machine learning models utilize Light Gradient Boosting Methods (GBM) algorithms;” “the machine learning algorithm is retrained at each depth advance in a defined interval using Real Time Training (RTT);” and “the statistical attributes calculated in step (d) comprise mean, median, and standard deviation of the drilling parameters in time contained in the specific intervals” which are abstract ideas. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represent mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of a processor and a memory coupled to the processor. The additional elements of the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality, and , as applied, are tools used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, and therefore, amount to “apply it.”
Claim 20 recites “the Real Time Training (RTT) technique improves accuracy of results as the well advances and the model becomes more robust by using information acquired in the well being drilled as the most valuable data during training raining, and wherein when retraining the machine learning models after system interruptions or model adjustments, a drilling simulation routine is executed to prevent data leakage by ensuring that models are not trained with data from depths more recent than depths to which the models are applied.” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTYN A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-8384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTYN A HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672