DETAILED ACTION
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, 3, 10, 12, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of “deploying a milling tool ...”, “obtaining a priori data….”, “ detecting, via cumulative algorithm…”, “generating a visualization…”, and “transmitting , to a display…”. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include technical features and structural elements for providing the steps recited above. Claims 3, 10, 12, 16, 19 and 20 are also rejected for similar reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zha (20190277135) in view of Niedermayr et al. (20040040746 - Niedermayr).
Zha discloses a method, comprising:
Re claims 1, 10, 12, and 16:
deploying a milling tool downhole into a wellbore via a tubing string;
obtaining a priori data with respect to a downhole milling target of the milling tool;
determining a stall anticipation window based on the a priori data and specification data associated with the milling tool (i.e., claims 1, 3, 6, - determine the one or more downhole events including bit stalling, based on the pre-trained model; generating a visualization of the one or more downhole events including bit stalling); and transmitting, to a display device for display, the visualization);
generating one or more visualizations associated with the a priori data, the one or more downhole events, or the stall anticipation window, or a combination thereof (i.e., claims 1, 3, 6), - determining the one or more downhole events including bit stalling, based on the pre-trained model; generating a visualization of the one or more downhole events including bit stalling); and transmitting, to a display device for display, the visualization” ; and
transmitting, to a display device for display, the visualization (i.e., claims 1, 3, 6).
Zha is silent on deploying a milling tool downhole into a wellbore via a coiled tubing string and detecting, via a cumulative sum (CUSUM) algorithm, one or more downhole events, and automatic adjustment of one or more operational parameters of the milling tool in claim 16 .
However, Niedermayr teaches a milling tool downhole into a wellbore via a coiled tubing string 34 (i.e., fig. 1, pgh. 32, “coiled tubing”) and one or more downhole events are detected by a cumulative sum (CUSUM) algorithm (i.e., claim 1, “recognizing a well control event based on the cumulative sum”), and automatic adjustment of one or more operational parameters of the milling tool (i.e., pghs. 93, 123, claim 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to try method of Zha with deploying a milling tool downhole into a wellbore via a coiled tubing string, cumulative sum (CUSUM) algorithm and the automatic adjustment, as taught by Niedermayr, for multiple benefits for well intervention (https://onepetro.org/spe/general-information/1360/Coiled-tubing-applications) and to accurately recognizes well control events (i.e., Niedermayr, pgh. 7).
Niedermayr further discloses,
Re claim 2, dynamically changing a sensitivity of detecting the one or more downhole events based on the a priori data (i.e., pgh. 55, claim 1, “the state recognition processes are substantially based on instrument sensed parameters that are monitored in real- time and dynamically changing”).
Zha further discloses,
Re claim 3, determining a stall anticipation window based on the a priori data and specification data associated with the milling tool; generating a second visualization comprising an indication of the stall anticipation window; and transmitting, to a display device for display, the visualization (i.e., claims 3, 6, - determining the one or more downhole events including bit stalling, based on the pre-trained model; generating a visualization of the one or more downhole events including bit stalling; and transmitting, to a display device for display, the visualization).
Re claim 4, the visualization comprises an indication of real- time data associated with an operation performed by the milling tool (i.e., pgh. 65, claim 6).
Niedermayr further discloses,
Re claim 5, the indication of real-time data comprises real- time, mill bit depth (i.e., pgh. 65).
Re claim 6, respective indications of cement plug a priori data, mechanical plug a priori data (i.e., pgh. 33, “Mud pumps 44 draw drilling fluid, or mud, 46” and fig. 1 depicts mud forms plug in a wellbore 32 – mud pumped by the pumps – mechanical) or both .
Re claim 7, the indication of real-time data comprises one or more time-gated logs of one or more surface channels, one or more downhole channels 32 (i.e., wellbore 32 filled with mud thus it is considered a mud channel), or both.
Re claims 8, 13, the indication of real-time data comprises one or more torque-thrust curves (i.e., pgh. 41, by rotary toque sensor 83).
Re claims 9, 14, the indication of real-time data comprises an indication of a state of milling (i.e., pgh. 72, “drilling state”).
Zha further discloses,
Re claim 11, the stall anticipation window is indicative of a time until a stall condition associated with the milling tool is reached (i.e., pgh. 65, claim 6, “displaying, via a visualization system, the one or more labels to provide a notification of the one or more downhole events, wherein the notification is displayed in real-time”).
Re claim 15, the one or more visualizations comprises two or more visualizations, and the two or more visualizations are displayed in a single user interface (i.e., pgh. 65, claims 1, 3, 6, “displaying, via a visualization system, the one or more labels to provide a notification of the one or more downhole events, wherein the notification is displayed in real-time”).
Niedermayr further discloses,
Re claim 17, the control decision model comprises one or more operational set points that are automatically adjusted based on the a priori data or user priorities (i.e., pghs. 93, 123, claim 72).
Re claim 8, the one or more operational set points comprise a desired rate of penetration, a weight on bit, or both (i.e., pgh. 52, “weight on bit”).
Zha further discloses,
Re claim 19, receiving real-time data associated with an operation performed by the milling tool; and determining that a stall has occurred based on the real-time data (i.e., clams 1, 3, 6).
Re claim 20, receiving real-time data associated with an operation performed by the milling tool; and determining that an interface has been reached by the milling tool based on the real-time data (i.e., claims 1, 3, 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art all show similar features to those of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights