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 .
Terminal disclaimer has been submitted and approved.
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.
1. Claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites series of steps for translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, or a combination thereof, using a model (map) wherein the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof. Thus, the claim is directed to a process as series of steps, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A — Prong One (Judicial Exception)
1. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of determining a correspondence between device systems (first supervisory system and first system-specific controller of a wellsite system) by converting from a format 1 to a format 2. The claim recites at a high level, the steps “determine that X corresponds/communicates/translates to Y” (translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command) or (translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal) and then inferring a relationship to use a router/modem/relay/repeater to communicate/translate (determine first system-specific command/signal is incompatible with the supervisory/system-specific controller).
2. The claim relies on “map” to determine command/signal with supervisory/system-specific controller correspondence. A “model” embodies mathematical relationships and calculations even if no formula is spelled out. Federal Circuit precedent treats statistical/analytical modeling as a mathematical concept. See SAP v. InvestPic, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical analysis), and Digitech Image Techs. v. EFI, 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mathematically generated device profile). Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing observed data using a model (map) to determine a correspondence between device systems (first supervisory system and first system-specific controller of a wellsite system) and then inferring a relationship (that supervisory command/signal is incompatible with the supervisory system; and system-specific command/signal is incompatible with system-specific controller) are evaluations/inferences. Skilled technicians can inspect types of connections and make such determinations mentally, which constitutes a mental process—i.e., pattern recognition, and making determinations/inferences based on a type of device systems. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mathematical/algorithms); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical/analytical concepts); MPEP § 2106.04.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
3. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a supervisory system, first system-specific controller, or any other technology. The claim language merely recites communicating of data between two different systems, without specifying particular signal processing techniques, sampling/processing parameters, hardware configuration, or other limitations that would meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a technical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligible where claims recite specific improvement to computer functionality).
4. The only physical elements recited (a supervisory system, first system-specific controller) are recited at a high level of generality and serve as the field of use for the claimed abstract idea. The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, wherein the remainder of the claim results in an informational determination that the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system. There is no recited transformation of an article or specific machine integral to the claimed steps beyond generic computer/system network communication. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims eligible when directed to a process that effects a physical transformation).
Step 2B — “Significantly More” Analysis
5. The additional elements of the claim—The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, wherein—are well-understood, routine, and conventional network activities for monitoring systems and signal-analysis implementations absent specific non-conventional detail. As recited, these elements amount to using generic data acquisition and data analysis techniques implemented by conventional processors and do not supply an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–56.
6. The ordered combination of steps— The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal using hierarchy level of network connectivity with the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system —reflects a conventional information-processing workflow and does not recite an unconventional arrangement that effects a technological improvement. Absent claim limitations or evidence demonstrating that the recited “translating” or “incompatibility between devices” is unconventional or yields a concrete technical improvement, the claim does not provide “significantly more.” See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual showing required to rebut a finding of well understood, routine, conventional).
Conclusion:
7. For the reasons stated above, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of event correlation and attribution) and the additional recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 3-4 and 9-10.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 9-10, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and said claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 12 recites series of steps for translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, or a combination thereof, via a first map, wherein the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof. Thus, the claim is directed to a process as series of steps, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A — Prong One (Judicial Exception)
1. Claim 12 is directed to the abstract idea of determining a correspondence between device systems (first supervisory system and first system-specific controller of a wellsite system) by converting from a format 1 to a format 2. The claim recites at a high level, the steps “determine that X corresponds/communicates/translates to Y” (translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command) or (translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal) and then inferring a relationship to use a router/modem/relay/repeater to communicate (determine first system-specific command/signal is incompatible with the supervisory/system-specific controller).
1. Claim 12 is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing observed data to determine a correspondence between device systems (first supervisory system and first system-specific controller of a wellsite system) and then inferring a relationship (that supervisory command/signal is incompatible with the supervisory system; and system-specific command/signal is incompatible with system-specific controller) are evaluations/inferences. Skilled technicians can inspect types of connections and make such determinations mentally, which constitutes a mental process—i.e., pattern recognition, and making determinations/inferences based on a type of device systems. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical/analytical concepts); MPEP § 2106.04.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
3. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a supervisory system, first system-specific controller, or any other technology. The claim language merely recites communicating of data between two different systems, without specifying particular signal processing techniques, sampling/processing parameters, hardware configuration, or other limitations that would meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a technical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligible where claims recite specific improvement to computer functionality).
4. The only physical elements recited (a supervisory system, first system-specific controller) are recited at a high level of generality and serve as the field of use for the claimed abstract idea. The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, wherein the remainder of the claim results in an informational determination that the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system. There is no recited transformation of an article or specific machine integral to the claimed steps beyond generic computer/system network communication. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims eligible when directed to a process that effects a physical transformation).
Step 2B — “Significantly More” Analysis
5. The additional elements of the claim—The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, wherein—are well-understood, routine, and conventional network activities for monitoring systems and signal-analysis implementations absent specific non-conventional detail. As recited, these elements amount to using generic data acquisition and data analysis techniques implemented by conventional processors and do not supply an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–56.
6. The ordered combination of steps— The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal using hierarchy level of network connectivity with the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system —reflects a conventional information-processing workflow and does not recite an unconventional arrangement that effects a technological improvement. Absent claim limitations or evidence demonstrating that the recited “translating” or “incompatibility between devices” is unconventional or yields a concrete technical improvement, the claim does not provide “significantly more.” See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual showing required to rebut a finding of well understood, routine, conventional).
Conclusion:
7. For the reasons stated above, Claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of event correlation and attribution) and the additional recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 18 recites series of steps for translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, or a combination thereof, via a first map, wherein the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof. Thus, the claim is directed to a process as series of steps, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A — Prong One (Judicial Exception)
1. Claim 18 is directed to the abstract idea of determining a correspondence between device systems (first supervisory system and first system-specific controller of a wellsite system) by converting from a format 1 to a format 2. The claim recites at a high level, the steps “determine that X corresponds/communicates/translates to Y” (translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command) or (translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal) and then inferring a relationship to use a router/modem/relay/repeater to communicate (determine first system-specific command/signal is incompatible with the supervisory/system-specific controller).
1. Claim 18 is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing observed data to determine a correspondence between device systems (first supervisory system and first system-specific controller of a wellsite system) and then inferring a relationship (that supervisory command/signal is incompatible with the supervisory system; and system-specific command/signal is incompatible with system-specific controller) are evaluations/inferences. Skilled technicians can inspect types of connections and make such determinations mentally, which constitutes a mental process—i.e., pattern recognition, and making determinations/inferences based on a type of device systems. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (statistical/analytical concepts); MPEP § 2106.04.
Step 2A — Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
3. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a supervisory system, first system-specific controller, or any other technology. The claim language merely recites communicating of data between two different systems, without specifying particular signal processing techniques, sampling/processing parameters, hardware configuration, or other limitations that would meaningfully integrate the abstract idea into a technical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligible where claims recite specific improvement to computer functionality).
4. The only physical elements recited (a supervisory system, first system-specific controller) are recited at a high level of generality and serve as the field of use for the claimed abstract idea. The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, wherein the remainder of the claim results in an informational determination that the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system. There is no recited transformation of an article or specific machine integral to the claimed steps beyond generic computer/system network communication. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims eligible when directed to a process that effects a physical transformation).
Step 2B — “Significantly More” Analysis
5. The additional elements of the claim—The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, wherein—are well-understood, routine, and conventional network activities for monitoring systems and signal-analysis implementations absent specific non-conventional detail. As recited, these elements amount to using generic data acquisition and data analysis techniques implemented by conventional processors and do not supply an inventive concept. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–56.
6. The ordered combination of steps— The “translating” of the first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, “translating” between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal using hierarchy level of network connectivity with the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system —reflects a conventional information-processing workflow and does not recite an unconventional arrangement that effects a technological improvement. Absent claim limitations or evidence demonstrating that the recited “translating” or “incompatibility between devices” is unconventional or yields a concrete technical improvement, the claim does not provide “significantly more.” See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (factual showing required to rebut a finding of well understood, routine, conventional).
Conclusion:
7. For the reasons stated above, Claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of event correlation and attribution) and the additional recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 15-16 are 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 3 recites the limitation "the translating" in line 3. It is indefinite and unclear to which translating is referring to? Is it translating between a supervisory system and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system? Or is it translating between the supervisory system and a second system-specific controller? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the translating" in line 1. It is indefinite and unclear to which translating is referring to? Is it translating between a supervisory system and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the translating" in line 1. It is indefinite and unclear to which translating is referring to? Is it translating between a supervisory system and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal?
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the translating" in line 2. It is indefinite and unclear to which translating is referring to? Is it translating between a supervisory system and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command? Or is it the translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal?
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunc et al. (US2016/0290119A1) hereafter Tunc, in view of MacDonald et al. (WO2016/102381A1) hereafter MacDonald.
Regarding claim 1, Tunc discloses a method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising:
translating between a supervisory system (fig 3A:301(3); par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may perform higher-level, generally non-deterministic operations, which may be relatively high-latency as compared to the operations of the lower and middle layers 301(1), 301(2). Continuing with the example above, the upper layer 301(3) may execute well production, simulation, and/or planning software, from which it may be determined that a particular pressure of fluid may be suited for use) and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system (fig 3A:301(1); par[0052]: The lower layer 301(1) may execute low-complexity, fast-loop control of the physical subsystems of the rig 102. A rig subsystem may be any device or group of devices that are configured to perform a task on the rig, such as one or more, or a part of, the central subsystem, downhole subsystem, fluids subsystem.), wherein the translating comprises at least one of: translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, or a combination thereof, (par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1). Further, the middle layer 301(2) may provide exposed variables to the upper layer 301(3), which may allow the upper layer 301(3) to adjust system 300 parameters without risking safety of the rig. The upper layer 301(3) may provide adjustments to these exposed variables, which, again, the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands for implementation in the lower layer 301(1)),
wherein the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof (par[0053], [0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may receive feedback (e.g., sensor feedback, as shown) from the lower layer 301(1), may make decisions based on this feedback, may execute controller coordination of multiple equipment or subsystems in the lower layer 301(1), and may execute complex model based controllers that are computationally intensive and may not be available in a PLC type controller of the lower layer 301(1), technically equivalent to relay the data from the upper layer 301(3) to the lower layer 301(1) using the middle layer 301(2), wherein the process of relaying data will be incompatible since the middle and upper layers comprise complex models that are not available in the controllers of the lower layer, therefore the relaying of the data cannot be identified and received. The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1)).
Tunc does not explicitly disclose the method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising: a first map.
MacDonald discloses the method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising: a first map (par[0042]: Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Tunc and the MacDonald references since both pertain to the field of telemetry downhole systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Tunc with the mapping feature as disclosed by MacDonald to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing an improved supervisory control system and method that enable automated supervisory control of complete drilling operations, with the presence of automatic control systems that allows the equipment status to be monitored consistently, MWD data to be consistently and correctly assessed, and optimized equipment control commands to be sent to the rig and downhole equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first map correlates commands between a plurality of different supervisory commands of the supervisory system and a plurality of system-specific commands of one or more system-specific controllers including the first system-specific controller (MacDonald par[0042]: Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value), and the first map correlates signals between a plurality of different supervisory signals of the supervisory system and a plurality of system-specific signals of the one or more system-specific controllers including the first system-specific controller (MacDonald par[0042]: Command is technically equivalent to the broad interpretation of a signal. A Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value).
Regarding claim 3, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
translating between the supervisory system and a second system-specific controller of the wellsite system (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a second gateway or in the lower layer 301(1).), wherein the translating comprises at least one of:
translating between a second supervisory command and a second system-specific command (Tunc fig 3A:301(1); par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may thus provide a task-based command to make the pressure of this fluid reach the determined value, which the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands (e.g., as part of a feedback loop) for implementation by the lower layer 301(1)), translating between a second supervisory signal and a second system-specific signal, or a combination thereof (Tunc fig 3A:301(1); par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may thus provide a task-based command to make the pressure of this fluid reach the determined value, which the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands (e.g., as part of a feedback loop) for implementation by the lower layer 301(1).), via a second map (Tunc fig 3A:301(1); par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may thus provide a task-based command to make the pressure of this fluid reach the determined value, which the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands (e.g., as part of a feedback loop) for implementation by the lower layer 301(1).),
wherein the second supervisory command or the second supervisory signal is incompatible with the second system-specific controller, or the second system-specific command or the second system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof (Tunc par[0053], [0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may receive feedback (e.g., sensor feedback, as shown) from the lower layer 301(1), may make decisions based on this feedback, may execute controller coordination of multiple equipment or subsystems in the lower layer 301(1), and may execute complex model based controllers that are computationally intensive and may not be available in a PLC type controller of the lower layer 301(1), technically equivalent to relay the data from the upper layer 301(3) to the lower layer 301(1) using the middle layer 301(2), wherein the process of relaying data will be incompatible since the middle and upper layers comprise complex models that are not available in the controllers of the lower layer, therefore the relaying of the data cannot be identified and received. The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1)).
Regarding claim 4, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first supervisory command is a first message-based command, the first supervisory signal is a first message-based signal, or a combination thereof (Tunc par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 5, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the translating is executed separate from the supervisory system and the first system-specific controller (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 6, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, comprising communicating between the supervisory system and the first system-specific controller via a first gateway (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 7, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, comprising executing the first system-specific command at the first system-specific controller after translating the first supervisory command to the first system-specific command (Tunc par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may thus provide a task-based command to make the pressure of this fluid reach the determined value, which the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands (e.g., as part of a feedback loop) for implementation by the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 8, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, comprising processing the first supervisory signal at the supervisory system after translating the first system-specific signal to the first supervisory signal (Tunc fig 3A:301(1) & 301(3), par[0055], [0056]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 9, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first system-specific controller is coupled to a first equipment of the wellsite system (Tunc par[0062]: FIG. 3B illustrates a more detailed, conceptual, schematic view of the system 300, according to an embodiment. As shown, the system 300 may include a rig control system 302, which may include various controllers (e.g., one or more programmable logic controllers), and which may implement one or more of the aforementioned layers 301(1)-(3). For example, the rig control system 302 may include one or more subsystem controllers (three shown: 308, 310, 312), which may be configured to control operation of physical subsystems such as pumping systems, managed pressure drilling systems, drawworks, a top drive system, downhole systems, portions thereof, combinations).
Regarding claim 10, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first equipment comprises at least one of a top drive, a drawworks, a mud pump, an autodriller, or a depth manager (Tunc par[0062]: FIG. 3B illustrates a more detailed, conceptual, schematic view of the system 300, according to an embodiment. As shown, the system 300 may include a rig control system 302, which may include various controllers (e.g., one or more programmable logic controllers), and which may implement one or more of the aforementioned layers 301(1)-(3). For example, the rig control system 302 may include one or more subsystem controllers (three shown: 308, 310, 312), which may be configured to control operation of physical subsystems such as pumping systems, managed pressure drilling systems, drawworks, a top drive system, downhole systems, portions thereof, combinations).
Regarding claim 11, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the method of claim 1, comprising implementing a well plan using the supervisory system, wherein the first supervisory command is configured to cause execution of an action of the well plan (Tunc par[0056], [0073]: The upper layer 301(3) may execute well production, simulation, and/or planning software, from which it may be determined that a particular pressure of fluid may be suited for use. The process network 306 technically equivalent to the supervisory system may provide an environment where more complicated or high-level supervisory control applications, and data analysis and monitoring applications may be executed. Such applications may be examples of process applications 322. The process applications 322 may execute tasks such as well planning, simulations, drilling parameter optimization).
Regarding claim 12, Tunc a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
translating between a supervisory system (fig 3A:301(3); par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may perform higher-level, generally non-deterministic operations, which may be relatively high-latency as compared to the operations of the lower and middle layers 301(1), 301(2). Continuing with the example above, the upper layer 301(3) may execute well production, simulation, and/or planning software, from which it may be determined that a particular pressure of fluid may be suited for use) and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system (fig 3A:301(1); par[0052]: The lower layer 301(1) may execute low-complexity, fast-loop control of the physical subsystems of the rig 102. A rig subsystem may be any device or group of devices that are configured to perform a task on the rig, such as one or more, or a part of, the central subsystem, downhole subsystem, fluids subsystem.), wherein the translating comprises at least one of: translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, or a combination thereof, (par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1). Further, the middle layer 301(2) may provide exposed variables to the upper layer 301(3), which may allow the upper layer 301(3) to adjust system 300 parameters without risking safety of the rig. The upper layer 301(3) may provide adjustments to these exposed variables, which, again, the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands for implementation in the lower layer 301(1)),
wherein the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof (par[0053], [0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may receive feedback (e.g., sensor feedback, as shown) from the lower layer 301(1), may make decisions based on this feedback, may execute controller coordination of multiple equipment or subsystems in the lower layer 301(1), and may execute complex model based controllers that are computationally intensive and may not be available in a PLC type controller of the lower layer 301(1), technically equivalent to relay the data from the upper layer 301(3) to the lower layer 301(1) using the middle layer 301(2), wherein the process of relaying data will be incompatible since the middle and upper layers comprise complex models that are not available in the controllers of the lower layer, therefore the relaying of the data cannot be identified and received. The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1)).
Tunc does not explicitly disclose the method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising: a first map.
MacDonald discloses the method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising: a first map (par[0042]: Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Tunc and the MacDonald references since both pertain to the field of telemetry downhole systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Tunc with the mapping feature as disclosed by MacDonald to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing an improved supervisory control system and method that enable automated supervisory control of complete drilling operations, with the presence of automatic control systems that allows the equipment status to be monitored consistently, MWD data to be consistently and correctly assessed, and optimized equipment control commands to be sent to the rig and downhole equipment.
Regarding claim 13, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the medium wherein the first map correlates commands between a plurality of different supervisory commands of the supervisory system and a plurality of system-specific commands of one or more system-specific controllers including the first system-specific controller (MacDonald par[0042]: Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value), and the first map correlates signals between a plurality of different supervisory signals of the supervisory system and a plurality of system-specific signals of the one or more system-specific controllers including the first system-specific controller (MacDonald par[0042]: Command is technically equivalent to the broad interpretation of a signal. A Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value).
Regarding claim 14, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the medium wherein the first supervisory command is a first message-based command, the first supervisory signal is a first message-based signal, or a combination thereof (Tunc par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 15, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the medium wherein the translating is executed separate from the supervisory system, separate from the first system-specific controller, or a combination thereof (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 16, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the medium comprising communicating between the supervisory system and the first system-specific controller via a first gateway (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).), wherein the translating is executed by the first gateway (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 17, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the medium of claim 12, comprising executing the first system-specific command at the first system-specific controller (Tunc par[0056], [0073]: The upper layer 301(3) may execute well production, simulation, and/or planning software, from which it may be determined that a particular pressure of fluid may be suited for use. The process network 306 technically equivalent to the supervisory system may provide an environment where more complicated or high-level supervisory control applications, and data analysis and monitoring applications may be executed. Such applications may be examples of process applications 322. The process applications 322 may execute tasks such as well planning, simulations, drilling parameter optimization) after translating the first supervisory command to the first system-specific command (Tunc par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may thus provide a task-based command to make the pressure of this fluid reach the determined value, which the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands (e.g., as part of a feedback loop) for implementation by the lower layer 301(1).), processing the first supervisory signal at the supervisory system after translating the first system-specific signal to the first supervisory signal, or a combination thereof (Tunc fig 3A:301(1) & 301(3), par[0055], [0056]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Regarding claim 18, Tunc discloses a system for controlling a wellsite system, comprising:
a control system configured to control a first equipment of the wellsite system (fig 2:105; par[0045]: The rig computing resource environment 105 may include various computing resources used for monitoring and controlling operations such as one or more computers having a processor and a memory. For example, the coordinated control device 104 may include a computer having a processor and memory for processing sensor data, storing sensor data, and issuing control commands responsive to sensor data. As noted above, the coordinated control device 104 may control various operations of the various systems of the drilling rig 102 via analysis of sensor data from one or more drilling rig systems (e.g. 110, 112, 114) to enable coordinated control between each system of the drilling rig 102), wherein the control system comprises a processor (par[0045]: The rig computing resource environment 105 may include various computing resources used for monitoring and controlling operations such as one or more computers having a processor and a memory. For example, the coordinated control device 104 may include a computer having a processor and memory for processing sensor data, storing sensor data, and issuing control commands responsive to sensor data) configured to perform
translating between a supervisory system (fig 3A:301(3); par[0056]: The upper layer 301(3) may perform higher-level, generally non-deterministic operations, which may be relatively high-latency as compared to the operations of the lower and middle layers 301(1), 301(2). Continuing with the example above, the upper layer 301(3) may execute well production, simulation, and/or planning software, from which it may be determined that a particular pressure of fluid may be suited for use) and a first system-specific controller of the wellsite system (fig 3A:301(1); par[0052]: The lower layer 301(1) may execute low-complexity, fast-loop control of the physical subsystems of the rig 102. A rig subsystem may be any device or group of devices that are configured to perform a task on the rig, such as one or more, or a part of, the central subsystem, downhole subsystem, fluids subsystem.), wherein the translating comprises at least one of: translating between a first supervisory command and a first system-specific command, translating between a first supervisory signal and a first system-specific signal, or a combination thereof, (par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1). Further, the middle layer 301(2) may provide exposed variables to the upper layer 301(3), which may allow the upper layer 301(3) to adjust system 300 parameters without risking safety of the rig. The upper layer 301(3) may provide adjustments to these exposed variables, which, again, the middle layer 301(2) may convert to one or more discrete commands for implementation in the lower layer 301(1)),
wherein the first supervisory command or the first supervisory signal is incompatible with the first system-specific controller, or the first system-specific command or the first system-specific signal is incompatible with the supervisory system, or a combination thereof (par[0053], [0055]: The middle layer 301(2) may receive feedback (e.g., sensor feedback, as shown) from the lower layer 301(1), may make decisions based on this feedback, may execute controller coordination of multiple equipment or subsystems in the lower layer 301(1), and may execute complex model based controllers that are computationally intensive and may not be available in a PLC type controller of the lower layer 301(1), technically equivalent to relay the data from the upper layer 301(3) to the lower layer 301(1) using the middle layer 301(2), wherein the process of relaying data will be incompatible since the middle and upper layers comprise complex models that are not available in the controllers of the lower layer, therefore the relaying of the data cannot be identified and received. The middle layer 301(2) may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1)).
Tunc does not explicitly disclose the method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising: a first map.
MacDonald discloses the method for controlling a wellsite system, comprising: a first map (par[0042]: Supervisory control system 114 is preferably configured to control a drilling operation at platform 104 by using the supervisory PLC to send control commands to the equipment PLC(s). If supervisory control system 114 is retrofitted to the rig, this may require executing a series of individually developed interface protocols for each individual rig, with each interface including a mapping of tags of all data required on the rig control system to the same data on the supervisory control system, through which the data is transferred between the two systems in real time. Likewise, configuring supervisory control system 114 to a particular rig may require adapting a generic engineering unit system for that rig, so that the configuration mirrors the specific engineering unit system of the rig under supervisory control, so that each data tag has the same value).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of both the Tunc and the MacDonald references since both pertain to the field of telemetry downhole systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improved the system of Tunc with the mapping feature as disclosed by MacDonald to achieve predictable results and gain the functionality of providing an improved supervisory control system and method that enable automated supervisory control of complete drilling operations, with the presence of automatic control systems that allows the equipment status to be monitored consistently, MWD data to be consistently and correctly assessed, and optimized equipment control commands to be sent to the rig and downhole equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the control system comprises a first gateway communicatively coupled to the first system-specific controller (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).), the first gateway is configured to communicate between the supervisory system and the first system-specific controller (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).), and the first system-specific controller is configured to execute the first system-specific command to control the first equipment (Tunc par[0056], [0073]: The upper layer 301(3) may execute well production, simulation, and/or planning software, from which it may be determined that a particular pressure of fluid may be suited for use. The process network 306 technically equivalent to the supervisory system may provide an environment where more complicated or high-level supervisory control applications, and data analysis and monitoring applications may be executed. Such applications may be examples of process applications 322. The process applications 322 may execute tasks such as well planning, simulations, drilling parameter optimization).
Regarding claim 20, Tunc in view of MacDonald discloses the system of claim 18, wherein the control system comprises a first gateway configured to perform the translating between the supervisory system and the first system- specific controller (Tunc fig 3A:301(2); par[0055]: The middle layer 301(2) technically equivalent to a gateway, may also convert high-level, task-based commands (such as to drill a stand) from the upper layer 301(3) into discrete and/or independent commands, which may be executed by individual controllers in the middle layer 301(2) or in the lower layer 301(1).).
Conclusion
US8880952B1 to Labonte discloses techniques for debugging code of a provider using a debug interface. The provider includes a first software layer providing common services and a second software layer including code modules each providing a set of customized services. The debug interface includes a first function interface for a first function having first code included in the first software layer and including a second function interface for a second function having second code included in the first software layer which provides for runtime transfer of control to code included in said second software layer.
US2010/0147589A1 to Wingky discloses a method and framework for drilling rig supervisory control automation that includes replication and aggregation of drilling rig supervisory control panels, a mechanism to manipulate the supervisory control panel parameters using one or more smart algorithms and a method and technique to access the supervisory control panels from a remote location. The system and method further includes recording, editing, and playing back a drilling rig's supervisory control parameter sequence during any typical drilling rig operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE BENLAGSIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5165. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-5165.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. 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.
/AMINE BENLAGSIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688