DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The line quality of all the drawings, when zoomed in, illustrate an inconsistent line quality. 37 CFR 1.84 (Standards for Drawings), section L (Character of lines, numbers, and letters) states: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined”. The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem.
The drawings (i.e., specifically figures 2-3) have poor line quality and thus do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem. The drawings (i.e., specifically figures 2-3) likely contain grayscale elements which causes image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. The drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral “300”, as shown in figure 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] drilling mud sample and enable said cleaning system[[ (410)]] to perform said cleaning action...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 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.
Claim 2 cites: “[...] wherein said function of a rate of penetration is based on an estimate of an acceptable amount of cuttings contained in a drilling mud sample.” Examiner has confusion as to what the metes and bounds of the relative terminology “acceptable” is limited to in light of the instant specification. Though at least paragraph [0098] of the instant specification provides support for using the phrase “an acceptable amount of cuttings”, it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what “acceptable” is being defined as in light of the instant specification as the term is not limited. For example, is “an acceptable amount of cuttings” based on typical parameters, specific situations, thresholds, etc.? For examination purposes, the examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the phrase to correspond to a drilling parameter threshold.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (US Publication Number 2022/0065102 A1; herein “Rowe”) in view of Graves et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0096893 A1; herein “Graves”) in further view of Pettapiece et al. (US Patent Number 9,726,003 B2; herein “Pettapiece”) and Mezgani et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0160269 A1; herein “Mezghani”).
In regard to claim 1, Rowe discloses: An intelligent cuttings sampler for the retrieval and testing of cuttings from a drilling operation comprising:
a sample extractor (144) which extracts a sample of drilling mud from a mud return system (i.e., return system comprising 142, 152 — paragraphs [0027-0030] and figure 1), comprising:
a plurality of openings (i.e., opening ends of at least 152) sized to allow for the passage of drilling mud containing cuttings (paragraphs [0021, 0027]), and
a flow mud pump (141) for extracting a drilling mud sample from the mud return system (Examiner notes that the mud pump 141 circulates the mud throughout the closed loop system and assists to extract drilling mud/samples from 152, in which a portion/sample of the drilling mud can be directed from 142 to 157/144),
a cleaning system which is configured to accept the drilling mud sample provided by the sample extractor and performs a cleaning action to remove fluid in the drilling mud sample resulting in a cutting sample (paragraphs [0027, 0077-0080]);
an analysis system (160) for performing an initial analysis on the cutting sample to classify a type of rock contained in the cutting sample (paragraphs [0078-0080]), and
a main controller, configured to control at least the flow mud pump (paragraphs [0031, 0034, 0181-018]).
However, Rowe is silent in regard to the following:
“a probe, wherein the probe is located inside of the mud return system and has a plurality of openings sized to allow for the passage of drilling mud containing cuttings,
a variable flow mud pump for extracting a drilling mud sample from the mud return system,
a packaging system for accepting and placing the cutting sample in a storage container, and
a main controller, configured to control at least the variable flow mud pump as a function of a rate of penetration of the drilling operation.”
Nonetheless, Graves teaches a similar type of wellbore surface extractor/analyzer system (158 — paragraphs [0023-0027]), similar to that of Rowe. Graves cites: “[...] the extractor and analyzer 158 may be in fluid communication with and receive samples of the drilling fluid through a probe connected to the return line 148” (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the return line, as taught by Rowe, to include a probe, as taught by Graves, to provide additional analyzing means in the system.
Furthermore, Rowe is silent in regard to:
“a variable flow mud pump for extracting a drilling mud sample from the mud return system, and
a main controller, configured to control at least the variable flow mud pump as a function of a rate of penetration of the drilling operation.”
Nonetheless, Pettapiece teaches a wellbore drilling system comprising a controller (abstract, column 1, lines 14-24, and claim 1), similar to that of Rowe. Pettapiece cites: “[...] the controller is configured to compare one or more of the drilling parameter settings with one or more of the current ROP, WOB and DP and to provide output instructions to the hydraulic cylinder control system to automatically control drilling by adjusting the function of the hydraulic cylinder and the mud pump to adjust one or more of the current ROP, WOB and DP to maintain the drilling parameter settings” (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the controller and pump system, as taught by Pettapiece, to include for the mud pump to be varbiablly controlled, and for the controller to control at least the variable flow mud pump as a function of a rate of penetration of the drilling operation, as taught by Pettapiece, to allow for maintaining drilling parameter settings (claim 1 — Pettapiece).
Furthermore, Rowe is silent in regard to: “[...] a packaging system for accepting and placing the cutting sample in a storage container...”.
Nonetheless, Mezghani teaches a drilling mud analysis system (abstract and paragraphs [0012, 0048]), similar to that of Rowe. Mezghani cites: “[...] the disclosure include a system and method for the automated sampling, preparation, analysis, and packaging of drilled cuttings. Specifically, one or more embodiments of this disclosure presents a modular integrated system for sampling, preparing, analyzing, and packaging drill cutting samples” (paragraph [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the system, as taught by Rowe, to include for a packaging system for storing drilled cuttings, as taught by Mezghani, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of having backup samples in the case that the analyzing system fails or malfunctions (paragraph [0002] of Mezghani). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 5, Rowe further discloses: wherein said cleaning system further comprises an initial shale-shaker configured to accept said drilling mud sample from said sample extractor and separate cuttings from drilling mud (paragraphs [0027, 0077, 0141]).
In regard to claim 9, Rowe in view of Graves, Pettapiece, and Mezghani disclose the preceding claim.
However, the modification of Rowe in view of Graves, Pettapiece, and Mezghani fails to teach: “[...] wherein the analysis system comprises a photography device capable of taking photographs in ultra-violet and visible light and wherein the classification of rock contained in the cutting sample is based on the output of a trained machine learning algorithm.”
Nonetheless, Mezghani teaches a drilling mud analysis system (abstract and paragraphs [0012, 0048]), similar to that of Rowe. Mezghani cites: “Although not depicted in FIG. 4, it is envisioned within the scope of the disclosure that the plurality of sensors include multiple other sensors used to analyze the drilled cuttings 27. To this end, cameras with automated algorithms may be used to monitor the drilled cuttings 27 and ensure that the drilled cuttings 27 are not damaged by other sensors. Moreover, brightfield cameras, hyperspectral cameras...” (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the analysis system, as taught by Rowe, to include a photography system capable of taking photographs in ultra-violet and visible light and wherein the classification of rock contained in the cutting sample is based on the output of a trained machine learning algorithm, as taught by Mezghani, to allow for combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of providing additional analysis to determine the state of the drilling mud/cuttings and drilling operations (paragraph [0039] of Mezghani). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection A.
In regard to claim 10, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Mezghani further discloses: wherein the photography device is a hyperspectral camera (paragraph [0039]).
In regard to claim 11, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Mezghani further discloses: wherein the packaging system is configured to separate a subset of said cutting sample for additional analysis (paragraph [0012] | see claim 1 rejection herein).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (US Publication Number 2022/0065102 A1; herein “Rowe”) in view of Graves et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0096893 A1; herein “Graves”) in further view of Pettapiece et al. (US Patent Number 9,726,003 B2; herein “Pettapiece”), Mezgani et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0160269 A1; herein “Mezghani”), and Smith (US Publication Number 2022/0283138 A1; herein “Smith”).
In regard to claim 7, Rowe in view of Graves, Pettapiece, and Mezghani disclose the preceding claim.
However, Rowe is silent in regard to: wherein the cleaning system further comprises: a washing station configured to perform a first washing action being performed with a solvent selected based on a type of the drilling mud, a second washing action being performed with detergent, and a third washing action being performed with water, a drying station configured to perform a drying operation using a heating element and/or a vibration element.
Nonetheless, Smith teaches a similar type of drill mud system which requires cleaning the mud, in which Smith cites: “[...] the cuttings sample is caught using a sieve-like device or device serving as a sieve, such as that similar or equivalent to a kitchen strainer, from the mud after it is discharged from the flow line and before it enters the possum belly. The sample is then usually washed and dried. Drying using high heat may compromise the sample. As such, air drying may be advantageous in some aspects. Washing using soap, detergents, solvents, or diesel is not recommended. A simple water-based wash is typically better. Alternatively, the cleaning step may simply comprise cleaning cuttings using mild brushing/abrasion, such as using a toothbrush or other similar device. Such dry-cleaning methods may be very advantageous where salt makes up part of the geologic formation, as washing such samples in water removes an actual part of the rock by the dissolution of the salt” (paragraph [0311-0312]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the cleaning system, as taught by Rowe, to include the steps, as taught by Smith, to allow for sealed at the well samples to be analyzed prior to post analysis, i.e., after cleaning, etc. (paragraph [0311] — Smith).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowe (US Publication Number 2022/0065102 A1; herein “Rowe”) in view of Graves et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0096893 A1; herein “Graves”) in further view of Pettapiece et al. (US Patent Number 9,726,003 B2; herein “Pettapiece”), Mezgani et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0160269 A1; herein “Mezghani”), and Tonner et al. (US Patent Number 10,927,671 B1; herein “Tonner”).
In regard to claim 16, Rowe in view of Graves, Pettapiece, and Mezghani disclose the preceding claim.
However, Rowe is silent in regard to: “[...] wherein said analysis system further comprises at least one of a XRD module, XRF module, and/or a LIBS module.”
Nonetheless, Tonner discloses that drilling mud analysis system(s) “[...] may include additional components 520, such as lighting, an on-line x-ray fluorescence (XRF) device, an on-line x-ray diffraction (XRD) device...” (column 14, lines 24-34).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the mud analysis system, as taught by Rowe, to include for on-line x-ray diffraction (XRD) device, as taught by Tonner, to perform additional analysis of drill cuttings (column 1, lines 8-12 & column 14, lines 24-34 of Tonner).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8, and 12-15 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate to cuttings sampler systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights