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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the recites the limitation “discounting effects of hydrostatics and fluid compressibility”. This limitation is indefinite because the term “discounting” is unclear. Does it mean that the effects of hydrostatics and fluid compressibility are ignored entirely in a mathematical calculation? Operating in a environment where the effects of hydrostatics and fluid compressibility are negligible? Or assuming that the effects of hydrostatics and fluid compressibility are zero? It is unclear what the scope of “discounting effects of hydrostatics and fluid compressibility” requires. Therefore, the metes and bounds of this claim is indefinite.
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 1-14 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 1-5 are directed to a method (process) and claim 6 is directed to a computer readable media (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 (similarly claim 6) recites the limitations “identifying a pressure drop in a standpipe and/or a drop in a rotation of a turbine of a continuous logging instrument;
calibrating the head losses inside the drill string; and calculating a distance (Lx) from the hole or the crack in the drill string to the BHA, from the equation…”
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.
Claim 1 (similarly, claim 6) recites the additional elements of “computer-implemented” and “obtaining head losses in a bottom-hole assembly (BHA)” .
The recitation of “computer-implemented” and “obtaining head losses in a bottom-hole assembly (BHA)” 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).
The recitation of “computer-implemented” merely amounts to “apply it” as this limitation requires 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.
The recitation of “obtaining head losses in a bottom-hole assembly (BHA)” mounts 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).
Claim 2 recites limitations which are additional elements, such as “collecting or estimating a plurality of data, the plurality of data comprising:
data on solids density… data on solids density data on the fluid flow rate when passing through the drill string before identifying the hole or crack (Q1);data on a head loss in a drill bit (DPpwd, APbit) after identifying the hole or the crack; data on a total pressure drop during the shallow test…” and these additional elements further amount 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). Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract ideas, and is not significantly more.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “adjusting an efficiency of an inlet flow (Q1);comparing actual and calculated values of the head losses in the drill string; and correcting the actual and calculated values by using a correction factor.” Nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned limitations from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The recitation of “collecting samples of pressure and flow rate points at each end of the drill string, wherein each of the samples comprises: flow rate of a drill fluid (Q);pressure in the standpipe (SPP);pressure inside the BHA (Pinternal);depth of a drill bit; equivalent static density (ESD); and pressure in an annulus” amount 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). Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract ideas, and is not significantly more.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the head loss inside the drill string is obtained from a difference between a pressure read in the standpipe (Pstandpipe) and a pressure inside the BHA (Pinternal), discounting effects of hydrostatics and fluid compressibility.” Nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned limitation from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract ideas, and is not significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “the correction factor is obtained by applying the least squares method to the pressure and flow rate points at each end of the drill string where the samples are collected.” Nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned limitation from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Therefore, similar to claim 1, this claim does not provide a practical application of the abstract ideas, and is not significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are not allowed due to the rejection under 35 USC § 101 above; however, no prior art rejection was given to claim 1.
The closest prior art to claims is Ringer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20150184504).
Regarding claim 1, Ringer teaches a computer-implemented method (pp[0043]) for identifying the position of a hole or a crack in a drill string (pp[0055]-[0057]), the computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a pressure drop in a standpipe and/or a drop in a rotation of a turbine of a continuous logging instrument (the pressure drop may be the difference between the pressure measured by the surface stand pipe pressure sensor 66 and the internal pressure while drilling sensor 68; pp[0071], The defect 39 allows drilling fluid to escape into the wellbore annulus 37, thereby bypassing the turbine 50 (as well as other downhole tools). Bypassing the turbine 50 results in a reduced spin rate of the turbine 50; pp[0048]);
obtaining head losses in a bottom-hole assembly (BHA) (pp[0077]);
calibrating the head losses inside the drill string (pp[0071]); and
calculating a distance (Lx) from the hole or the crack in the drill string (One or more sensors may be used to determine the existence of the defect 39, the flow rate through the defect 39, and/or the depth or location of the defect 39; pp[0035], [0044]).
However, Ringer is silent regarding calculating the distance (Lx) from the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
472
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would not be obvious to modify Ringer such that the distance of the defect in the drill string is calculated using the above equation because no prior art was found, alone or in combination with Ringer, to teach the above equation. Therefore, such as modification would be based on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Prior are not relied upon but pertinent to the instant application:
Capoglu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20190032480) discusses defect detection device which is used to detect defects in wellbore pipe strings.
Janssen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20170108468) discloses a tubing inspection tool at the rig site to measure defects in each tubular element, such as drill pipe, as it is removed from the well.
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