DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, the Applicant argues that the recitation of "determining one or more drilling parameters for the bottom hole assembly based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the drilling feedback data, wherein the one or more drilling parameters comprise a speed of a drill bit, a weight on bit, or both; and sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters.” overcomes the rejection under 101 because “at least sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters, wherein the drilling parameters comprise a speed of a drill bit, a weight on bit, or both cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind”.
The Examiner agrees that sending data, i.e. “sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system…” cannot be performed in the mind; however, the limitation of “sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system…” is an additional element that is well-understood, routine and conventional because this step merely requires transmission of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Furthermore, the limitation of “a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters” is a step merely amounts to “apply it” because this step contains mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g. a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. While the step of “adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly…” may suggest a physical change, under BRI this limitation can be interpreted as merely adjusting a threshold of a drilling parameter, e.g. adjusting the max/minimum of a drilling parameter, which does not necessarily reflect a physical change to the drilling operation. . The claim does not specify what about or how the drilling tool is being adjusted physically, e.g. increasing/decreasing the actual WOB or torque parameter. As such, this step merely amounts to “apply it” because this step includes instructions to implement an abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues that Applicant respectfully submits that even assuming, arguendo, that amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a judicial exception, the amended independent claims are integrated into a practical application of ‘determining, via the processing system, a bit design for use in the borehole based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the borehole data.’ Therefore, ‘the system may determine a drill bit design resulting in the least amount of HFTOs in the drill string during pre-drilling operations, thereby ensuring efficient use of resources and increased lifespan of the downhole tool.’”.
There step of “determining, via the processing system, a bit design for use in the borehole based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the borehole data” itself is an abstract idea because a person can literary imagine in a drawing of a bit in their mind or even draw a bit design using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements, i.e. “processing system”, does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
The Applicant further states that “Moreover, amended independent claims are further integrated into a practical application of ‘determining one or more drilling parameters for the bottom hole assembly based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the drilling feedback data, wherein the one or more drilling parameters comprise a speed of a drill bit, a weight on bit, or both; and sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters.’ As such, "the system may determine and adjust drilling parameters of a drill system during drilling operations to reduce the presence of HFTOs, thereby reducing the stress and/or strain on the drill string. Id. Accordingly, even if the claims recite a judicial exception, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a practical application, and therefore are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.”
The limitation of “determining one or more drilling parameters for the bottom hole assembly based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the drilling feedback data, wherein the one or more drilling parameters comprise a speed of a drill bit, a weight on bit, or both; and sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters.” do not integrate the abstract idea onto a practical application because the limitation further add to the abstract idea. The recitation of “determining one or more drilling parameters for the bottom hole assembly..” is an abstract idea because a person can mentally determine/decide on one or more drilling parameter in their mind or even write down what drilling parameter(s) they determined using pen and paper. Furthermore, the step of “sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system…” is an additional element that is well-understood, routine and conventional because this step merely requires transmission of data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
As a whole, the claim merely recites a sequence of abstract steps such as “generating…a first model based on lab test data”, “ generating…a second model…” , “simulating…drilling dynamics” and “determining…bit design…” which can be performed in the
mind or using pen and paper. The additional elements do nothing to integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application because they either amount to mere data gathering or “apply it” such as “receiving…cutter lab test data…”, “receiving…drilling log data…” and “a control system…”. The recitation of “ a processing system”, “ is merely a generic computer element which does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above.
The claims do not reflect how the underlying physical process of “drilling” or designing of the “drilling tool” is specifically being improved. In other words, the claim does not recite any improvement/physical change that reflects how the drilling operation or bit design is being done differently as a result of the method, such as increasing, decreasing or varying a WOB or torque. As such, the claims lack improvement to the technology itself and further the amendments do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-6 and 21 are directed to a method (process), claims 8-13 and 22 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine) and claims 15-18 and 23 are directed to a system (machine). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis
in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract limitations including (or substantially similar to): “generating…a first model based on the cutter lab test data, wherein the first model is representative of one or more effects to one or more rock types provided by using one or more cutter types of the plurality of cutter types”, “generating, via the processing system, a second model based on the first model and the bit lab test data, wherein the second model is representative of one or more additional effects to the one or more rock types provided by using one or more drill bits of the first plurality of drill bits deployed in a bottom hole assembly with the one or more cutter types” and “determining, via the processing system, a bit design for use in the borehole based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the borehole 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. The mere recitation of generic computing elements does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Mental processes cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as decision-making steps which encompasses the limitations listed above. The claims do not require any action as currently worded. Thus, the claims recite abstract ideas.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners
evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of (or substantially similar to) “a processor”/”a processing system” and “plurality of drill bits”, “receiving, via a processing system, cutter lab test data associated with a plurality of cutter types”, “receiving, via the processing system, bit lab test data associated with a first plurality of drill bits”, “receiving, via the processing system, drilling log data associated with a second plurality of drill bits comprising the one or more drill bits; receiving, via the processing system, borehole data associated with a borehole” , “simulating, via the processing system, drilling dynamics for the first plurality of drill bits and the second plurality of drill bits based on the first model and drilling log data or the second model and the drilling log data”, “receiving drilling feedback data associated with drilling within the borehole using the bit design”, and “sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters.”
The recitation of “plurality of drill bits” includes additional elements whose functions are recited at a high level of generality and are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of us. Furthermore, the recitation of “a processor”/”a processing system”, “receiving, via a processing system, cutter lab test data associated with a plurality of cutter types”, “receiving, via the processing system, bit lab test data associated with a first plurality of drill bits”, “receiving, via the processing system, drilling log data associated with a second plurality of drill bits comprising the one or more drill bits; receiving, via the processing system, borehole data associated with a borehole”, “simulating, via the processing system, drilling dynamics for the first plurality of drill bits and the second plurality of drill bits based on the first model or the second model and the drilling log data”, “receiving drilling feedback data associated with drilling within the borehole using the bit design”, and “sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters” amount to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical applications because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the recitation of “plurality of drill bits” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim(s) add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Furthermore, as taught by Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), additional elements of “cellular telephones” did limit the use of the abstract idea of “providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content”, however the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Regarding the recitation of “receiving, via a processing system, cutter lab test data associated with a plurality of cutter types”, “receiving, via the processing system, bit lab test data associated with a first plurality of drill bits”, “receiving, via the processing system, drilling log data associated with a second plurality of drill bits comprising the one or more drill bits; receiving, via the processing system, borehole data associated with a borehole” and “receiving drilling feedback data associated with drilling within the borehole using the bit design” these steps mount to mere data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Regarding the recitation of “a processor”/”a processing system” and “a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters “ merely amounts to “apply it.” The “processor” and “control system” contain mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Regarding the recitation of “sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters” is well-understood, routine and conventional because this step merely requires transmission of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Finally, the recitation of “simulating, via the processing system, drilling dynamics for the first plurality of drill bits and the second plurality of drill bits based on the first model or the second model and the drilling log data” amounts to “apply it” because this step merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea which is analogous to “A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair”. See In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add
significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 20 further recite limitations which amount to data gathering because this step uses sensors to measure data to perform the abstract idea. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, similar to claims 1, 8 and 15, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, recite (or substantially similar to) “simulating a plurality of torsional oscillations across a drill string associated with the bottom hole assembly using a plurality of bit designs, wherein each of the plurality of bit designs comprises one of the first plurality of drill bits or one of the second plurality of drill bits” which amounts to “apply it” as this step is a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Furthermore, the recitation of “comparing each of the plurality of torsional oscillations for each of the plurality of bit designs; and selecting the bit design causing a least amount of torsional oscillations based on the plurality of torsional oscillations.” are directed to abstract ideas because nothing in the claim elements preclude the aforementioned step from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claims 1 and 8, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 18, the claims further recite limitations which are directed to abstract ideas because nothing in the claims preclude the steps recited in the claims from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claims 8 and 15, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Regarding claims 21, 22 and 23, the recitation of “determining one or more drilling parameters that reduce one or more torsional oscillations below a certain threshold” is an abstract idea because nothing in the claims preclude the step recited in the claims from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claims 1, 8 and 15, these claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 21-23 are not allowable due to the 101 rejection above; however, the claims have not been rejected under prior art.
The closest prior art to claims 1, 8 and 15 is Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20230385474).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method, comprising:
generating a first model using forces acting on each cutter element while drilling (a single cutter force model may be used to determine forces applied to each element; pp[0065]);
generating, via the processing system, a second model based on the first model using bit design characteristics (a drill bit model is generated based on bit design characteristics. For example, with reference to FIG. 16, a processor of the computer 1670 can perform this generation. The offset drill bit model characterizes the wear and/or damage for the entire run of an offset run drill bit used to drill an offset well; pp[0095], The force model may output simulated values of attributes of drilling a wellbore at each intermediate step in the offset drill bit model; pp[0096]);
receiving, via the processing system, drilling log data associated with a second plurality of drill bits comprising the one or more drill bits (Prior to drilling the wellbore, the bit may be new, and the cutters of the drill bit may have zero wear. After drilling the wellbore, the bit may be scanned to determine dull measurements of each primary cutter. In some embodiments, the drill bit may be scanned with an automated digital grading system to determine dull measurements of each primary cutter. The drill bit may also be scanned manually or by other digital systems that may require manual intervention; pp[0035]);
receiving, via the processing system, borehole data associated with a borehole (The calibration factors can include offset wellbore data that may be obtained from various sources such as data from sensors on downhole tools of the drill string or on surface of a well system; pp[0097]); and
simulating drilling dynamics for a drill bit; determining, via the processing system, a bit design for use in the borehole based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the borehole data (Simulation of damaged cutters of a drill bit are now described. FIG. 11 depicts a flowchart of example operations to simulate damaged cutters of a drill bit during drilling a wellbore with the drill bit, according to some embodiments. Damaged cutters may occur due to several reasons including high WOB or TOB, a sudden change in rock properties, and motion of the bit. The simulation may help determine drill bit design characteristics at intermediate steps of the drilling process that may be otherwise unknown due to unknown forces on the cutters of the drill bit while drilling and unknown rock properties of the subsurface formation; pp[0070]);
determining one or more drilling parameters for the bottom hole assembly based on the simulated drilling dynamics and the drilling feedback data, wherein the one or more drilling parameters comprise a speed of a drill bit, a weight on bit, or both (a determination is made of whether parameters for subsequent drilling operations need adjustment based on the simulation. For example, with reference to FIG. 1, a processor of the computer 170 can make this determination. For instance, the parameters (such as WOB, TOB, etc.) for a subsequent drilling operation of the current wellbore or a different wellbore can be adjusted based on the simulation; pp[0042]); and
sending the one or more drilling parameters to a control system configured to adjust one or more operations of a drilling tool associated with the bottom hole assembly based on the one or more drilling parameters (If it is determined that adjustment of parameters for subsequent drilling operations is needed, operations of the flowchart 300 continue at block 316. Otherwise, operations of the flowchart 300 are complete; pp[0042], Fig. 3, The controller 1815 can perform various control operations to a wellbore operation based on the simulations. For example, the controller 1815 can modify a drilling operation based on the simulations; pp[0108]).
Chen is silent regarding receiving, via a processing system, cutter lab test data associated with a plurality of cutter types;
Generating the first model based on the cutter lab test data, wherein the first model is representative of one or more effects to one or more rock types provided by using one or more cutter types of the plurality of cutter types;
receiving, via the processing system, bit lab test data associated with a first plurality of drill bits;
generating, via the processing system, the second model on the second model AND the bit lab test data, wherein the second model is representative of one or more additional effects to the one or more rock types provided by using one or more drill bits of the first plurality of drill bits deployed in a bottom hole assembly with the one or more cutter types;
simulating, via the processing system, drilling dynamics for the first plurality of drill bits and the second plurality of drill bits based on the first model or the second model and the drilling log data;
It would not be obvious to modify Chen with the above features as it would require significant redesign to the method of Chen. Furthermore, no prior art w found, alone or in combination with Chen, to teach the above features. Therefore, such modifications would be based on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Chen does not teach all of the limitations of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1 discussed above.
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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAMIA QUAIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights