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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered.
The art rejections are withdrawn due to amendments as discussed below.
The 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments and agreements by applicant as to claim interpretation of the term “soil composition.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the invention of claim 1 is directed to a unique and unconventional method of performing sonic drilling that is directed to a practical application and not an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim includes abstract ideas as discussed below. While there are additional elements, as discussed below. However, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., do not Pass Step 2A, Prong 2) since the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)) or to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e., “apply it”) which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claim recites an invention that in not merely routine or conventional use of computers or the Internet due to the sonic drilling, vibrating, measuring, and determination of soil composition. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The determination of the soil composition is an abstract idea as discussed below. The sonic drilling, vibrating, and measuring are well-known, routine, and conventional in the wellbore field for the reasons discussed below (see references and court decisions). Furthermore, the optimization of operation is merely instructions to apply the abstract idea and does not impose any meaningful limitation. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
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 and 3-4 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 and 3-4 are directed to a method (process). 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: “converting the measured vibrations from the time domain to the frequency domain by applying a Fourier transformation; and
-determining a soil composition at a momentary drill depth by comparing the frequency pattern from the Fourier transformation with predefined frequency patterns for different soil compositions.”
The step of converting the measured vibrations by applying a Fourier transformation is 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 step of determining the soil composition is 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. Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. More specifically, as there is no recitation of a processing structure (i.e., processor, etc.) 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: performing sonic drilling into a ground surface at the geographical location with a sonic drill rig, wherein the sonic drill rig comprises a sonic drilling head and a drill pipe coupled to the sonic drilling head; the sonic drilling head has two counter-rotating weights for vibrating the drill pipe during sonic drilling; measuring the vibrations of the drill pipe during drilling; and adjusting sonic drilling parameters at the momentary drill depth based on the determined soil composition for the momentary drill depth, wherein the sonic drilling parameters comprise drill force, drill speed, and the frequency of the vibrations with which the drill pipe is vibrated.
“[P]erforming sonic drilling into a ground surface at the geographical location with a sonic drill rig, wherein the sonic drill rig comprises a sonic drilling head and a drill pipe coupled to the sonic drilling head”; the sonic drilling head having two counter-rotating weights for vibrating the drill pipe; and wherein the sonic drilling head has vibration means for vibrating the drill pipe” and “measuring the vibrations of the drill pipe during drilling” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The step of “adjusting the sonic drilling parameters at the momentary drill depth based on the determined soil composition for the momentary drill depth, wherein the sonic drilling parameters comprise drill force, drill speed, and the frequency of the vibrations with which the drill pipe is vibrated” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (i.e., “apply it”).
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 recited step of “performing sonic drilling” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Knolle (US 2022/0065045 see ¶ [0003]; “One known drilling technology is sonic drilling. In sonic drilling, a drill pipe or drill string is driven into the ground while being subjected to acoustic vibrations generated by the sonic drill head.”) and Powers (US 2018/0142437 see ¶ [0016]; “Sonic drilling apparatus will not be described in detail, as it is well known in the art, and includes an orbiting mass oscillator, or like mechanism for causing vibrational waves, having a threaded fitting to which drill casings have been conventionally attached.”) both disclose sonic drilling with a drill pipe and sonic drill head containing a vibration means is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
As discussed above, “the sonic drilling head has two counter-rotating weights for vibrating the drill pipe” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as Roussy (US 2007/0151377 see ¶ [0002]) and Serette (US 5,540,295 see Col. 3, lines 28-50) both disclose having a vibration means be two-counter rotating weights is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art.
The step of “measuring the vibrations of the drill pipe during drilling” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as the limitation does not amount to more than mere data gathering. Additionally, no device (i.e., sensors) for the measuring of the vibrations is actually recited in either the claims or the specifications. Given the generality of the data collection, the limitation does not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, “drill pipe” and “drilling” merely link the method to a particular technical environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an inventive concept to the claim. These limitation merely represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The step of “adjusting the sonic drilling parameters at the momentary drill depth based on the determined soil composition for the momentary drill depth, wherein the sonic drilling parameters comprise drill force, drill speed, and the frequency of the vibrations with which the drill pipe is vibrated” merely amounts to “apply it.” The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution (i.e., changing a parameter) to an identified problem (i.e., soil composition) with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result (i.e., what aspects are changed or how the change is affected by the abstract idea) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 further recites “combining the determined soil compositions at a plurality of momentary drill depths to compose the geology at the geographical location” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Claim 4 further recites “comparing of the frequency pattern from the Fourier transformation with predefined frequency patterns for different soil compositions a probabilistic, or fuzzy, matching algorithm is used” which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-4 are allowable over the prior art but stand rejected under 101 as discussed above.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The art of record does not teach or make obvious the relationship between the drill force, drill speed, and the frequency of the vibrations with which the drill bit is vibrated at a momentary drill depth and their adjustment based on the determined soil composition that is determined from the vibrations of the drill pipe in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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