DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/10/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 8-13 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 14-16, 18, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 1-7 and 14-23 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/10/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, and 103 rejections of the pending claims have been fully considered. The Applicant argues the following.
(1) As per the 101 rejection, the Applicant argues, in summary, that (i) the claims do not recite a judicial exception. Claims include a dynamic adjustment of the GUI similar to Example 23. The acts of claim 1 are not performed in the human mind, or are not performed using pen and paper; (ii) the claims recite features that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application and recites an inventive concept outside of any alleged judicial exception. The limitations of "based on receiving a work icon selection...", "adjusting the trajectory section view to include drilling task information..." incorporate the claim into a practical application by dynamically modifying the display on the GUI based on user selections; and (iii) claims 1 and 14 are at least directed to unconventional recitations that offer specific technological improvements in computer system operations and amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 includes limitations, or combinations of limitations, which are missing from the prior art and are not otherwise well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, thus making independent claim 1 novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains the position that the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes because the claims describe a process of facilitating a user’s request for well planning, risk analysis and reporting. Facilitating a user’s request for work related information for planning purposes is considered a method of organizing human activity as the response to the request guides the user’s actions/behavior. Preparing a wellbore plan and performing risk analysis using models can practically be performed in the human mind with pen and paper, thus reflecting mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a), a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The Examiner also maintains the position that the additional elements recited in the claims and listed in Steps 2A(2) and 2B do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more because the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve upon another technology or technical field. The additional elements reflect the use of computer technology to facilitate a request from a person to perform an abstract process and display results. The claims generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Applying an abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h)). Unlike Example 23, the computer technology (e.g. GUI) is not improved beyond its original functions and capabilities (e.g. displaying data, receiving input from a user, etc.) as a result of implementing the Applicant’s claim limitations. Per MPEP 2106.05 (a), if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
The Examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.05, inventive concept is distinct and different from demonstrating novelty or obviousness. Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Therefore, the amended claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
(2) As per the 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant argues that Jones and Narayanan, when taken individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and every element of independent amended claim 1. Jones nor Narayanan teach "separating a wellbore plan into a plurality of modular work items to construct the wellbore, ...".
The Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Therefore, the previous 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of 102 and 103 rejections are made. See details below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 1-7 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, “Generating Risk Analysis Reports Using a Risk Model”, is directed to an abstract idea, specifically Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes, without significantly more. The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually or in combination provide mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 14-23 are directed to a statutory category, namely a process (claims 1-7 and 21-22), a machine (claims 14-20), and a manufacture (claim 23).
Step 2A (1): Independent claims 1, 14, and 23 are directed to an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes, based on the following claim limitations: “separating/separate a wellbore plan for a wellbore into a plurality of modular work items to construct the wellbore, each of the plurality of modular work items including a discrete drilling task of a plurality of drilling tasks performed with drilling equipment to construct a segment of a plurality of segments of the wellbore; based on receiving a work icon selection of one of the plurality of selectable work icons associated with a drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks, adjusting/adjust the trajectory section view to include drilling task information associated with the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks; identifying/identify a plurality of historical events associated with the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks; based on receiving an event icon selection of one the plurality of selectable event icons, applying/apply a risk model to the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks, the risk model performing a risk analysis of an event likelihood and event severity of an event of the plurality of historical events associated with the event icon selection, the risk model generating a risk analysis report of the event; …providing/provide the risk analysis report of the event… (claims 1, 14, and 23). These claims describe a process of facilitating a user’s request for well planning, risk analysis and reporting. Dependent claims 2-7 and 15-22 further describe the data being analyzed and included in the well plan, the modeling, and the risk analysis results. Facilitating a user’s request for work related information for planning purposes is considered a method of organizing human activity as the response to the request guides the user’s actions/behavior. Preparing a wellbore plan and performing risk analysis using models can practically be performed in the human mind with pen and paper, thus reflecting mental processes. Therefore, these limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity which encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and Mental Processes which include concepts performed in the human mind such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity can encompass the activity of a single person (e.g. a person following a set of instructions), activity that involve multiple people (e.g. a commercial interaction), and certain activity between a person and a computer (e.g. a method of anonymous loan shopping). Mental Processes include claims directed to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 14-23 are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Step 2A (2): The claims as a whole do not integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 14, and 23 recite additional elements of “providing/provide, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, a first window including plurality of selectable work icons associated with the plurality of modular work items of the wellbore plan and a trajectory section view of the wellbore, the trajectory section view including a graphical representation of the wellbore plan; providing/provide, on the GUI and overlaying at least a portion of the first window, a second window including a plurality of selectable event icons…; in a third window overlaying at least a portion of the first window and the second window providing the risk analysis report of the event on the GUI (claims 1, 14, and 23); a drilling planning system, comprising: a display configured to present a graphical user interface (GUI); and a processor and memory, the memory including instructions that cause the processor to (claim 14); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising (claim 23)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field and (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and (c) implementing the abstract idea with or by use of a particular machine, (d) effecting a particular transformation or reduction of an article, or (e) applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as computing and display devices that are used to perform and present the results of the abstract process in Step 2A(1). Limitations that recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea are not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, claims 1-7 and 14-23 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus are not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 14, and 23 recite additional elements of “providing/provide, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, a first window including plurality of selectable work icons associated with the plurality of modular work items of the wellbore plan and a trajectory section view of the wellbore, the trajectory section view including a graphical representation of the wellbore plan; providing/provide, on the GUI and overlaying at least a portion of the first window, a second window including a plurality of selectable event icons…; in a third window overlaying at least a portion of the first window and the second window providing the risk analysis report of the event on the GUI (claims 1, 14, and 23); a drilling planning system, comprising: a display configured to present a graphical user interface (GUI); and a processor and memory, the memory including instructions that cause the processor to (claim 14); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising (claim 23)”. These additional elements evaluated individually and in combination are viewed as mere instructions to apply or implement the abstract idea on a computer and generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Applying an abstract idea on a computer and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h)). Therefore, claims 1-7 and 14-23 as a whole do not include individual or a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 14-15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2018/0051552 A1).
As per claims 1, 14, and 23 (Currently Amended), Li teaches a method for drilling planning, the method comprising; A drilling planning system, comprising: a display configured to present a graphical user interface (GUI) and a processor and memory, the memory including instructions that cause the processor to; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising (Li e.g. A system can be utilized to implement a method for facilitating distributed well engineering, planning, and/or drilling system design across multiple computation devices where collaboration can occur among various different users (e.g., some being local, some being remote, some being mobile, etc.) [0159]. FIG. 3 shows an example of a system 300 that includes various equipment for evaluation 310, planning 320, engineering 330 and operations 340 [0096]. FIG. 9 shows an example of a system 900 that includes various components that can be local to a wellsite and includes various components that can be remote from a wellsite [0166]. FIG. 10 shows an example of a method 1000 that includes an acquisition block 1010 for acquiring trajectory information; a generation block 1020 for, based at least in part on a portion of the trajectory information, generating a set of candidate trajectories with associated performance indicator values (PI values); a render block 1030 for rendering a graphical user interface (GUI) to a display; a reception block 1040 for, via the GUI, receiving input that adjusts one of the performance indicator values; and a performance block 1050 for, responsive to the adjustment to the one of the performance indicator values, performing one or more actions [0189]. The method 1000 is shown in FIG. 10 in association with various computer-readable medium (CRM) blocks 1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1051, 1061, 1071 and 1081. Such blocks generally include instructions suitable for execution by one or more processors (or cores) to instruct a computing device or system to perform one or more actions. While various blocks are shown, a single medium may be configured with instructions to allow for, at least in part, performance of various actions of the method 1000. As an example, a computer-readable medium (CRM) may be a computer-readable storage medium that is non-transitory and not a carrier wave [0206].):
Li teaches separating/separate a wellbore plan for a wellbore into a plurality of modular work items to construct the wellbore, each of the plurality of modular work items including a discrete drilling task of a plurality of drilling tasks performed with drilling equipment to construct a segment of a plurality of segments of the wellbore; (Li e.g. FIG. 3 shows an example of a system 300 that includes various equipment for evaluation 310, planning 320, engineering 330 and operations 340. For example, a drilling workflow framework 301, a seismic-to-simulation framework 302, a technical data framework 303 and a drilling framework 304 may be implemented to perform one or more processes such as a evaluating a formation 314, evaluating a process 318, generating a trajectory 324, validating a trajectory 328, formulating constraints 334, designing equipment and/or processes based at least in part on constraints 338, performing drilling 344 and evaluating drilling and/or formation 348 [0096]. As an example, the system 400 of FIG. 4 may be implemented to perform one or more portions of one or more workflows associated with the system 300 of FIG. 3. For example, the drilling workflow framework 301 may interact with the technical data framework 303 and the drilling framework 304 before, during and/or after performance of one or more drilling operations. In such an example, the one or more drilling operations may be performed in a geologic environment (see, e.g., the environment 150 of FIG. 1) using one or more types of equipment (see, e.g., equipment of FIGS. 1 and 2) [0122]. As an example, one or more systems can be utilized to implement a workflow that can be performed collaboratively. As an example, the system 300 of FIG. 3 can be operated as a distributed, collaborative well-planning system [0144]. Well planning can include selecting a drilling and/or completion assembly which may be used to implement a well plan [0157]. As an example, a system may allow well engineering, planning, and/or drilling system design to take place via a subsystems approach where a wellsite system is composed of various subsystem, which can include equipment subsystems and/or operational subsystems (e.g., control subsystems, etc.) [0160]. FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram depicting an example of a drilling operation of a directional well in multiple sections [0161]. Both the drilling planning during the well design stage and the actual drilling according to the drilling plan in the drilling stage may be performed in multiple sections (e.g., sections 801, 802, 803 and 804) corresponding to the multiple layers in the subterranean formation. For example, certain sections (e.g., sections 801 and 802) may use cement 807 reinforced casing 806 due to the particular formation compositions, geophysical characteristics, and geological conditions [0162]. As an example, a method may be implemented on a section-by-section basis. As an example, a new section or sections can be combined together to form a new trajectory (e.g., an updated or revised trajectory) [0271]. FIG. 17 shows an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 1700 that includes various subsystem tasks as may be part of a well plan. For example, a rig up subsystem, a casing subsystem, a cement subsystem, a drilling subsystem and a rig down subsystem are illustrated as some possible examples of subsystems that can include associated tasks. In the example of FIG. 17, the GUI 1700 can be render information as to scheduled tasks that are organized by subsystem type where a scheduled task may aim to achieve a desired state of wellsite equipment [0274].)
Li teaches providing/provide, on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, a first window including plurality of selectable work icons associated with the plurality of modular work items of the wellbore plan and a trajectory section view of the wellbore, the trajectory section view including a graphical representation of the wellbore plan; (Li e.g. As an example, a method can include designing a trajectory to be drilled from a surface location to one or more subterranean targets. Such a method can include defining two or more performance indicators (PIs) relating to the trajectory, creating a set of possible trajectories from the surface location to one or more of the targets, evaluating at least a portion of the set of possible trajectories with respect to at least some of the defined PIs, and render a graphic user interface to a display, for example, as a tool that can receive input (e.g., user input) to interrogate of one or more of the PIs and, for example, that can output a single trajectory from the set of possible trajectories and/or receive input (e.g., user input) to select a single trajectory from the set of possible trajectories [0047]. While the aforementioned method mentions a trajectory to be drilled, such a method may, for example, be implemented during drilling. For example, drilling can commence according to a digital well plan where the drilling progresses along a portion of a trajectory of the digital well plan [0048]. In such an example, based on one or more types of information, a method can include rendering a graphical user interface to a display that allows for revising the digital well plan as to one or more portions of the trajectory that has yet to be drilled [0048]. A trajectory may incorporate information about tools, bottom-hole assemblies, casing sizes, etc., that may be used in drilling the well. A well trajectory determination may take into consideration a variety of other parameters, including risk tolerances, fluid weights and/or plans, bottom-hole pressures, drilling time, etc. [0148]. FIG. 21 shows example GUIs 2110, 2120 and 2130 where the GUI 2110 shows trajectories and where the GUI 2120 shows slider graphic controls that are adjustable, for example, to adjust KOP, maximum DLS and TD [0286]. In FIG. 21, the GUI 2130 shows planar or projected views to respective planes for a well trajectory. As an example, where a slider graphic control is provided, changes made via that control may be used to update a projected view or views [0287].)
Li teaches based on receiving a work icon selection of one of the plurality of selectable work icons associated with a drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks: adjusting/adjust the trajectory section view to include drilling task information associated with the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks; (Li e.g. In such an example, based on one or more types of information, a method can include rendering a graphical user interface to a display that allows for revising the digital well plan as to one or more portions of the trajectory that has yet to be drilled [0048]. FIG. 17 shows an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 1700 that includes various subsystem tasks as may be part of a well plan. For example, a rig up subsystem, a casing subsystem, a cement subsystem, a drilling subsystem and a rig down subsystem are illustrated as some possible examples of subsystems that can include associated tasks. In the example of FIG. 17, the GUI 1700 can be render information as to scheduled tasks that are organized by subsystem type where a scheduled task may aim to achieve a desired state of wellsite equipment [0274]. FIG. 19 shows example GUIs 1910, 1920 and 1930, which may be part of a method or a workflow where input may be received by a computing system or a portion thereof to cause a framework to render the GUI 1910, to proceed to rendering of the GUI 1920 and to proceed to rendering the GUI 1930. As shown, the GUIs 1910, 1920 and 1930 allow for selection of a plan as part of a trajectory design workflow [0284]. FIG. 21 shows example GUIs 2110, 2120 and 2130 where the GUI 2110 shows trajectories and where the GUI 2120 shows slider graphic controls that are adjustable, for example, to adjust KOP, maximum DLS and TD [0286]. In FIG. 21, the GUI 2130 shows planar or projected views to respective planes for a well trajectory. As an example, where a slider graphic control is provided, changes made via that control may be used to update a projected view or views [0287]. FIG. 30 shows an example of a multi-objective optimization scheme 3000 that includes a trajectory graphic, a plan graphic and an optimization graphic, which may optionally be graphics of one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs). As shown in FIG. 30, the plan can include various segments such as a starting segment, a build segment and a target segment. The trajectory graphic includes a visual presentation in two-dimensions of a multi-segment trajectory with various factors identified with respect to position (e.g., in 2D and/or 3D). Such factors may be utilized within a multi-objective optimization problem that aims to generate a trajectory, which may be a trajectory selected from a set of candidate trajectories (e.g., a Pareto efficient set, etc.) [0301].)
Li teaches identifying/identify a plurality of historical events associated with the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks; and (Li e.g. FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram depicting an example of a drilling operation of a directional well in multiple sections [0161]. The field management tool 820 may be configured with functionalities to store oilfield data (e.g., historical data, actual data, surface data, subsurface data, equipment data, geological data, geophysical data, target data, anti-target data, etc.) and determine relevant factors for configuring a drilling model and generating a drilling plan [0163]. During various operations at a wellsite, data can be acquired for analysis and/or monitoring of one or more operations. Such data may include, for example, subterranean formation, equipment, historical and/or other data. Static data can relate to, for example, formation structure and geological stratigraphy that define the geological structures of the subterranean formation. Static data may also include data about a bore, such as inside diameters, outside diameters, and depths. Dynamic data can relate to, for example, fluids flowing through the geologic structures of the subterranean formation over time. The dynamic data may include, for example, pressures, fluid compositions (e.g. gas oil ratio, water cut, and/or other fluid compositional information), and states of various equipment, and other information [0164].)
Li teaches providing/provide, on the GUI and overlaying at least a portion of the first window, a second window including a plurality of selectable event icons associated with the plurality of historical events related to the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks associated with the work icon selection; (Li e.g. Based on one or more types of information, a method can include rendering a graphical user interface to a display that allows for revising the digital well plan as to one or more portions of the trajectory that has yet to be drilled [0048]. FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram depicting an example of a drilling operation of a directional well in multiple sections. The drilling operation depicted in FIG. 8 includes a wellsite drilling system 800 and a field management tool 820 for managing various operations associated with drilling a bore hole 850 of a directional well 817 [0161]. During various operations at a wellsite, data can be acquired for analysis and/or monitoring of one or more operations. Such data may include, for example, subterranean formation, equipment, historical and/or other data. Static data can relate to, for example, formation structure and geological stratigraphy that define the geological structures of the subterranean formation. Static data may also include data about a bore, such as inside diameters, outside diameters, and depths. Dynamic data can relate to, for example, fluids flowing through the geologic structures of the subterranean formation over time. The dynamic data may include, for example, pressures, fluid compositions (e.g. gas oil ratio, water cut, and/or other fluid compositional information), and states of various equipment, and other information [0164]. As an example, a nudge tool may be rendered as a GUI that may be a pop-up GUI that overlays one or more other interfaces (e.g., one or more other GUIs, etc.). As an example, a nudge tool may provide for interactive trajectory editing, automated trajectory design, automated anti-collision analysis, automated no-go zone calculation, etc. [0255]. FIGS. 19 to 26 shows various illustrations, which can be or include GUIs, that are utilized in a workflow or workflows [0283]. FIG. 19 shows example GUIs 1910, 1920 and 1930, which may be part of a method or a workflow where input may be received by a computing system or a portion thereof to cause a framework to render the GUI 1910, to proceed to rendering of the GUI 1920 and to proceed to rendering the GUI 1930. As shown, the GUIs 1910, 1920 and 1930 allow for selection of a plan as part of a trajectory design workflow [0284].)
Li teaches based on receiving an event icon selection of one the plurality of selectable event icons, applying/apply a risk model to the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks, the risk model performing a risk analysis of an event likelihood and event severity of an event of the plurality of historical events associated with the event icon selection, the risk model generating a risk analysis report of the event; and (Li e.g. A workflow may progress to a first engineering service provider (e.g., one or more processing machines associated therewith), which may validate a well trajectory and, for example, relief well design (see, e.g., the validation block 328). Such a validation process may include evaluating physical properties, calculations, risk tolerances, integration with other aspects of a workflow, etc. [0149]. A multi-objective optimization problem can be solved using a Pareto frontier approach (e.g., as to generation, filtering, etc. of candidate trajectories). A planning objective can be to design a well trajectory that is drillable with its PIs being the “best” possible; in other words, a planning objective can be to determine a planned trajectory that can be drilled with some assurances of low cost and risk [0188]. As an example, a method can include utilization of one or more performance indicators (PIs) where a PI can include one or more of total length of a trajectory, a maximum rate of curvature (dogleg severity) of a trajectory, a depth of a kick-off point, a measure of an anti-collision risk (e.g., such as an oriented separation factor), a measure of a size of a mud-weight window, a measure of an average friction along a bore, etc. [0200]. A nudge tool can provide for interactively pick a point on a trajectory, for example, to nudge the trajectory. As an example, a nudge tool can provide an interactive way to visualize a specified traveling plate view by picking a point on the trajectory, from a variety of views and plots on a GUI of a framework. Such an approach can allow a user to know a more precise positional condition in a high-risk area from a traveling plate view [0242]. FIGS. 14 and 15 show example GUIs 1400 and 1500 of a nudge tool, as may be implemented via a planning framework, a drilling framework, etc. [0247]. The GUI 1400 also shows information such as azimuth, offset and DLS (e.g., dogleg severity). Additionally, the GUI 1400 shows information such as well name (B11), CTC (e.g., 42.83 ft or 13 m) and OSF (e.g., 2.93). The GUI 1500 also shows information such as azimuth, offset and DLS (e.g., dogleg severity). Additionally, the GUI 1500 shows information such as well name (B11), CTC (e.g., 59.88 ft or 18.25 m) and OSF (e.g., 4.4) [0249]. As an example, a method can include automated offset well analysis to find one or more risky offset wells. As an example, a method can include automated Anti-collision calculation and analysis. As an example, a method can include travelling plate visualization, for example, by rendering information to a display. As an example, a method can include no-go zone, region, circle, etc. visualization, for example, by rendering information to a display [0261].)
Li teaches in a third window overlaying at least a portion of the first window and the second window, providing the risk analysis report of the event on the GUI. (Li e.g. FIGS. 22, 23 and 24 are a series of GUIs that include the nudge tool GUI shown in various states 2220, 2320 and 2420, which correspond to various actions. For example, in the GUI 2210, a pointer graphic may be controlled via touch, a mouse, etc. to select a value at a measured depth for one of the named well trajectories (see names in upper left). Upon selection, the nudge tool GUI 2220 can render associated information including, for example, a traveling plate view with associated information such as no-go zones. As an example, a user may enter information to be received by a computer or computing system such that a point on a selected trajectory (e.g., subject well) is to be nudged. In such an example, a nudge graphic control button 2230 may be actuated to effectuate the nudge and, for example, calculate updated or revised points of the trajectory [0288]. A nudge tool may be rendered as a GUI that may be a pop-up GUI that overlays one or more other interfaces (e.g., one or more other GUIs, etc.). As an example, a nudge tool may provide for interactive trajectory editing, automated trajectory design, automated anti-collision analysis, automated no-go zone calculation, etc. [0255]. FIG. 24 shows an example where an update has occurred (e.g., compare GUIs 2210 and 2310 to the GUI 2410, see inset where a change has been implemented). The GUIs 2210, 2310 and 2410 may include color coding along the measured depth (MD) axis. Such coding can indicate regions that may be adjusted, for example, to reduce risks. For example, as risk is reduced, calculated values may be utilized to determine a color for a portion of a trajectory such as, for example, changing a color from red to green, red to blue, red to orange, etc. As shown, the GUI 2410 can include receiving input (e.g., via one or more human input devices (HIDs)) and rendering an enlarged graphic of a region, which may include color or other coding that highlights one or more portions of a trajectory (e.g., or trajectories) that may be nudged, etc. In such an example, the GUI 2420 may optionally change to a MD of the region to facilitate nudging, etc. [0290].)
As per claims 2 and 15 (Currently Amended), Li teaches the method of claim 1 and the drilling planning system of claim 14, Li also teaches wherein the plurality of historical events are based on drilling data for a plurality of offset wellbores, the drilling data including at least one of daily drilling reports, drilling equipment information, well construction services reports, or incident information (Li e.g. FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram depicting an example of a drilling operation of a directional well in multiple sections. The drilling operation depicted in FIG. 8 includes a wellsite drilling system 800 and a field management tool 820 for managing various operations associated with drilling a bore hole 850 of a directional well 817 [0161]. The field management tool 820 may be configured with functionalities to store oilfield data (e.g., historical data, actual data, surface data, subsurface data, equipment data, geological data, geophysical data, target data, anti-target data, etc.) and determine relevant factors for configuring a drilling model and generating a drilling plan [0163]. During various operations at a wellsite, data can be acquired for analysis and/or monitoring of one or more operations. Such data may include, for example, subterranean formation, equipment, historical and/or other data. Static data can relate to, for example, formation structure and geological stratigraphy that define the geological structures of the subterranean formation. Static data may also include data about a bore, such as inside diameters, outside diameters, and depths. Dynamic data can relate to, for example, fluids flowing through the geologic structures of the subterranean formation over time. The dynamic data may include, for example, pressures, fluid compositions (e.g. gas oil ratio, water cut, and/or other fluid compositional information), and states of various equipment, and other information [0164].)
As per claims 5 and 18 (Currently Amended) Li teaches the method of claim 1 and the drilling planning system of claim 14, Li also teaches wherein the wellbore plan includes a scope of work for the wellbore (Li e.g. Well planning is a process by which a path of a well can be mapped, so as to reach a reservoir, for example, to produce fluids therefrom or, for example, to inject fluids into the reservoir; noting that a field may utilize one or more production wells and one or more injection wells [0045]. A method can include designing a trajectory to be drilled from a surface location to one or more subterranean targets [0047]. A trajectory may incorporate information about tools, bottom-hole assemblies, casing sizes, etc., that may be used in drilling the well. A well trajectory determination may take into consideration a variety of other parameters, including risk tolerances, fluid weights and/or plans, bottom-hole pressures, drilling time, etc. [0148]. FIG. 17 shows an example of a graphical user interface (GUI) 1700 that includes various subsystem tasks as may be part of a well plan. For example, a rig up subsystem, a casing subsystem, a cement subsystem, a drilling subsystem and a rig down subsystem are illustrated as some possible examples of subsystems that can include associated tasks. In the example of FIG. 17, the GUI 1700 can be render information as to scheduled tasks that are organized by subsystem type where a scheduled task may aim to achieve a desired state of wellsite equipment [0274].).
As per claims 6 and 19 (Currently Amended), Li teaches the method of claim 1 and the drilling planning system of claim 14, Li also teaches wherein the event related to the plurality of historical events includes a plurality of events, and wherein the event icon selection includes a selection of the plurality of events, the risk model performing the risk analysis on each of the plurality of events (Li e.g. As an example, a well plan (e.g., a digital well plan) can be generated based at least in part on imposed constraints and known information [0049]. One or more other constraints may be imposed, for example, consider one or more constraints germane to capabilities of tools being used and/or one or more constraints related to drilling time and risk tolerance [0046]. FIG. 7 shows an example of a wellsite system 700, specifically, FIG. 7 shows the wellsite system 700 in an approximate side view and an approximate plan view along with a block diagram of a system 770 [0138]. Such equipment can include one or more associated functions and/or one or more associated operational risks, which may be risks as to time, resources, and/or humans [0139]. The field management tool 820 may be configured with functionalities to store oilfield data (e.g., historical data, actual data, surface data, subsurface data, equipment data, geological data, geophysical data, target data, anti-target data, etc.) and determine relevant factors for configuring a drilling model and generating a drilling plan [0163]. During various operations at a wellsite, data can be acquired for analysis and/or monitoring of one or more operations. Such data may include, for example, subterranean formation, equipment, historical and/or other data. Static data can relate to, for example, formation structure and geological stratigraphy that define the geological structures of the subterranean formation. Static data may also include data about a bore, such as inside diameters, outside diameters, and depths. Dynamic data can relate to, for example, fluids flowing through the geologic structures of the subterranean formation over time. The dynamic data may include, for example, pressures, fluid compositions (e.g. gas oil ratio, water cut, and/or other fluid compositional information), and states of various equipment, and other information [0164]. The static and dynamic data collected via a bore, a formation, equipment, etc. may be used to create and/or update a three dimensional model of one or more subsurface formations. As an example, static and dynamic data from one or more other bores, fields, etc. may be used to create and/or update a three dimensional model [0165]. A method can include generating a set of candidate trajectories that satisfy one or more constraints. In such an example, the set of trajectories can be filtered to produce a Pareto frontier (e.g., a Pareto efficient set) prior to performing a trade-off analysis. For example, the method 1000 of FIG. 10 can include a filter block that can be utilized for generating the set of candidate trajectories. In such an example, the filter block may be part of the generation block 1020, be part of another block or may be a separate block that may optionally be selectable to filter a set of candidate trajectories [0199]. As an example, a method can include utilization of one or more performance indicators (PIs) where a PI can include one or more of total length of a trajectory, a maximum rate of curvature (dogleg severity) of a trajectory, a depth of a kick-off point, a measure of an anti-collision risk (e.g., such as an oriented separation factor), a measure of a size of a mud-weight window, a measure of an average friction along a bore, etc. [0200].).
As per claims 7 and 20 (Original), Li teaches the method of claim 6 and the drilling planning system of claim 19, Li also teaches wherein the event icon selection includes un-selecting an event icon associated with an irrelevant event of the plurality of events (Li e.g. FIG. 4 shows an example of a system 400 that includes a client layer 410, an applications layer 440 and a storage layer 460 [0114]. The database management component 442 can include one or more search engine modules that provide for searching one or more information that may be stored in one or more data repositories. A search engine may be configured to apply one or more filters from a set or sets of filters, for example, to enable users to filter out data that may not be of interest [0117]. A method can include generating a set of candidate trajectories that satisfy one or more constraints. In such an example, the set of trajectories can be filtered to produce a Pareto frontier (e.g., a Pareto efficient set) prior to performing a trade-off analysis. For example, the method 1000 of FIG. 10 can include a filter block that can be utilized for generating the set of candidate trajectories. In such an example, the filter block may be part of the generation block 1020, be part of another block or may be a separate block that may optionally be selectable to filter a set of candidate trajectories [0199].).
As per claim 21 (New), Li teaches the method of claim 1, Li also teaches wherein the drilling equipment includes a bit type and instrumentation (Li e.g. FIG. 2 shows an example of a wellsite system 200 (e.g., at a wellsite that may be onshore or offshore) [0064]. As shown in the example of FIG. 2, the drillstring 225 is suspended within the borehole 232 and has a drillstring assembly 250 that includes the drill bit 226 at its lower end [0066]. The system 400 of FIG. 4 may be implemented to perform one or more portions of one or more workflows associated with the system 300 of FIG. 3. For example, the drilling workflow framework 301 may interact with the technical data framework 303 and the drilling framework 304 before, during and/or after performance of one or more drilling operations. In such an example, the one or more drilling operations may be performed in a geologic environment (see, e.g., the environment 150 of FIG. 1) using one or more types of equipment (see, e.g., equipment of FIGS. 1 and 2) [0122]. As an example, information from a drill bit database may be accessed and utilized. For example, consider information from Smith Bits (Schlumberger Limited, Houston, Tex.), which may include information from various operations (e.g., drilling operations) as associated with various drill bits, drilling conditions, formation types, etc.[0181].).
As per claim 22 (New), Li teaches the method of claim 1, Li also teaches wherein the plurality of segments include a vertical segment of the wellbore, a horizontal segment of the wellbore, a dogleg having a dogleg severity, and a formation segment (Li e.g. FIG. 8 shows a schematic diagram depicting an example of a drilling operation of a directional well in multiple sections. The drilling operation depicted in FIG. 8 includes a wellsite drilling system 800 and a field management tool 820 for managing various operations associated with drilling a bore hole 850 of a directional well 817 [0161]. Both the drilling planning during the well design stage and the actual drilling according to the drilling plan in the drilling stage may be performed in multiple sections (e.g., sections 801, 802, 803 and 804) corresponding to the multiple layers in the subterranean formation. For example, certain sections (e.g., sections 801 and 802) may use cement 807 reinforced casing 806 due to the particular formation compositions, geophysical characteristics, and geological conditions [0162]. FIGS. 14 and 15 show example GUIs 1400 and 1500 of a nudge tool, as may be implemented via a planning framework, a drilling framework, etc. [0247]. The GUI 1400 also shows information such as azimuth, offset and DLS (e.g., dogleg severity). Additionally, the GUI 1400 shows information such as well name (B11), CTC (e.g., 42.83 ft or 13 m) and OSF (e.g., 2.93). The GUI 1500 also shows information such as azimuth, offset and DLS (e.g., dogleg severity). Additionally, the GUI 1500 shows information such as well name (B11), CTC (e.g., 59.88 ft or 18.25 m) and OSF (e.g., 4.4) [0249]. FIG. 21 shows example GUIs 2110, 2120 and 2130 where the GUI 2110 shows trajectories and where the GUI 2120 shows slider graphic controls that are adjustable, for example, to adjust KOP, maximum DLS and TD [0286]. FIGS. 25 and 26 show examples of GUIs 2510 and 2610, which are shown as tables of data where, for example, the GUI 2510 may be for a before scenario and the GUI 2610 may be for an after scenario (e.g., after nudging). As an example, the values (e.g., data) in the GUIs 2510 and 2610 may be selectable and editable [0291].).
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, 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 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.
Claims 3-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2018/0051552 A1) in view of Jones (US 2023/0237594 A1).
As per claims 3 and 16 (Currently Amended) Li teaches the method of claim 1 and the drilling planning system of claim 14, Li teaches applying a risk model (Li e.g. A method may be implemented as an automated or semi-automated way to design one or more trajectories. As an example, a method may design a single trajectory or a group of trajectories, for example, without collision avoidance. As an example, a method can include modeling one or more trajectories as a multi-objective optimization problem. For example, PIs can be utilized as cost functions and rules as constraints [0187]. As an example, a multi-objective optimization problem can be solved using a Pareto frontier approach (e.g., as to generation, filtering, etc. of candidate trajectories). A planning objective can be to design a well trajectory that is drillable with its PIs being the “best” possible; in other words, a planning objective can be to determine a planned trajectory that can be drilled with some assurances of low cost and risk [0188]. As an example, a method can include automated offset well analysis to find one or more risky offset wells. As an example, a method can include automated Anti-collision calculation and analysis. As an example, a method can include travelling plate visualization, for example, by rendering information to a display. As an example, a method can include no-go zone, region, circle, etc. visualization, for example, by rendering information to a display [0261]. FIG. 30 shows an example of a multi-objective optimization scheme 3000 that includes a trajectory graphic, a plan graphic and an optimization graphic, which may optionally be graphics of one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs). As shown in FIG. 30, the plan can include various segments such as a starting segment, a build segment and a target segment. The trajectory graphic includes a visual presentation in two-dimensions of a multi-segment trajectory with various factors identified with respect to position (e.g., in 2D and/or 3D). Such factors may be utilized within a multi-objective optimization problem that aims to generate a trajectory, which may be a trajectory selected from a set of candidate trajectories (e.g., a Pareto efficient set, etc.) [0301].), Li does not explicitly teach, however, Jones teaches wherein applying the risk model includes applying a Monte Carlo simulation to the drilling task of the plurality of drilling tasks to generate the event severity (Jones e.g. A method, apparatus and system is provided for assessing risk for well completion (Abstract). Outputting, using a graphic display, a risk transfer model results based on a total BRT hours from the Below Rotary Table and the non-productive time distribution produced from the one or more Monte Carlo trials (Abstract). Embodiments of the present invention include quantitatively assessing risk and reliability for drilling and well completion based upon a variety of parameters, such as non-productive time (NPT) [0004]. NPT and BRT distributions may be statistically developed via a Monte Carlo method with the number of trials being supplied by the user as an input parameter. Persons of ordinary skill in the art are aware that a Monte Carlo method typically follows that pattern of determining a domain of possible inputs, generates inputs randomly from a probability distribution over the domain, perform a deterministic computation on the inputs, and aggregate the results [0036]. The NPT severity distribution for each planed run may then be multiplied by the binary frequency function to compute the planned run NPT risk. The NPT risk value may then be modified by factors to account for the specific hole size, depth, drilled length, and maximum dog leg values [0036].).
The Examiner submits that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s Bore Trajectory System risk modeling to include a Monte Carlo simulation as taught by Jones in order to accurately gauge NPT and/or other performance parameters and assess well completion risk (Jones e.g. [0005]).
As per claims 4 and 17 (Original), Li teaches the method of claim 1 and the drilling planning system of claim 14, Li does not explicitly teach, however, Jones teaches wherein the event severity includes an estimate of non-productive time (NPT) associated with the event (Jones e.g. The present invention generally relates to determining and predicting risk based on results from failures that originate from an operator's product and service delivery using a risk transfer model (RTM) [0004]. Embodiments of the present invention include quantitatively assessing risk and reliability for drilling and well completion based upon a variety of parameters, such as non-productive time (NPT) [0004]. Non-productive time extends a drilling period but does not include or determine all of the actual drilling time [0030]. The RTM may standardize key performance indicators that may be used to differentiate drilling operators' products and services in the marketplace. The RTM may comprise a NPT parameter that indicates well failures from the product or service delivery of the drilling operator(s). Other well failures, such as failure operating outside specification, non-product or service delivery not impacted by the drilling operator(s), product relevant notification and in-house product functional failure may be omitted in assessing a drilling operator(s) NPT performance [0023]. The variables and category criteria included in the RTM may be used to generate NPT event frequency, severity, and risk with suitable data populations in order to provide the required statistical significances [0032].).
The Examiner submits that before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s Bore Trajectory System’s performance indicators to include NPT event severity as taught by Jones in order to promote continuous performance improvement in drilling operations and generate operational key performance indicators that can be financially interpreted and measured by oil field personnel (Jones e.g. [0024]).
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 Ayanna Minor whose telephone number is (571)272-3605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights