Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2025 has being considered by the examiner.
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 14-17 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.
The metes and bounds of claim 14 are unclear as “broken ground condition” is not defined in a way that is readily discernable. Is the broken ground condition that drilling has begun and the ground is being fractured by the drill bit? Is the condition that there is a break in the wellbore wall? As it is not clear what a broken ground condition fully encompasses nor how the condition is determined within the claim language the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 14 is rejected on this basis.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The metes and bounds of claim 14 are unclear as “competent ground condition” is not defined in a way that is readily discernable. Is the competent ground condition that borehole is suitable for collaring? Is the condition that there is no break in the borehole wall or collaring section? As it is not clear what a competent ground condition fully encompasses nor how the condition is determined within the claim language the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 17 is rejected on this basis.
The metes and bounds of claim 20 are unclear as the claim language claims a “measured parameter of the drill” and “a new measured parameter of the drill” it is unclear if this is the same parameter being measured at two different points (time depth etc) or if it is an entirely new parameter being measured (hoist speed vs pull down force).
Furthermore, later claim limitations are directed towards “a drilling parameter of the drill” and “the measured parameter” and it is unclear if this is a third new parameter or if it is the same parameters required in earlier limitations. As it is not clear what the limitation fully encompasses in the claim language the metes and bounds of claims 20 are unclear.
Claim 20 is rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
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, 17-20 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. 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
The claim(s) recite(s) abstract limitations including:
Claim 1: identifying, based on a depth of a drill bit in the subsurface region; identifying based on the collaring stage, a reference value for a drilling parameter of the drill wherein the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter and wherein the drilling parameter comprises a measured value of an operation of the drill during drilling; generating a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value; determining, from the difference, an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter; generate an adjusted drilling parameter
Claim 20: identify, based on a depth of the drill bit in the subsurface region, the collaring stage of drilling the borehole; identify, based on the collaring stage, the reference value; generate the difference; determine from the difference the adjustment factor; generate the adjusted drilling parameter.
Dependent claims 17-29
Claim 17: determining that the penetration rate is less than a predetermined percentage of a predetermined collaring penetration rate, determining that the pull down force is greater than a predetermined collaring pulldown force; determining that responsive to both determining the penetration rate and the pull down force a competent ground condition exists
Claim 18: embedding data; executing…a machine learning model on the vector data structure to predict the reference value either prior to drilling or during drilling.
Claim 19: further embedding the measure value into the vector data structure; executing is performed during drilling; the reference value is predicted…
These limitations, as drafted, are abstract mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 17-20 recites the additional element of:
Claim 1:
A drill, a subsurface region, a drill string, a drill bit, a hoist control, a drill controller which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use;
Adjusting the drilling parameter according to the adjustment factor; modifying, during drilling and with the drill controller, operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter to change the measured parameter to a new measured parameter which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
A collaring stage of drilling the borehole; sensing, with a sensor in operational communication with the drill, a measured parameter of the drill during drilling which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 17:
increasing a rotation speed of the drill bit…increasing the pull down force to a drill phase pull down force which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Measured value comprises a combination of a penetration rate of the drill bit and a pulldown force of the drill bit are considered an insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 18:
Processor which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim 20:
A drill string, a drill bit, a hoist control, a drill controller which merely links said method to a particular technical environment or field of use.
a computer processor; a data repository; a server controller; command the drill to drill into the subsurface region; adjust the drilling parameter according to the adjustment factor; command the drill controller to modify, during drilling, operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter to change the measured parameter to the new measured parameter which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
A sensor, a collaring stage, a measured parameter of the drill and a new measured parameter of the drill; a reference value for the drilling parameter of the drill, wherein the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter, and wherein the drilling parameter comprises a measured value of an operation of the drill during drilling, an adjusted drilling parameter, a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value; an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter; sense…the measured parameter of the drill during drilling; which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity.
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).
Claim 1:
As discussed above, A drill, a subsurface region, a drill string, a drill bit, a hoist control, a drill controller merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)).
With respect to Adjusting the drilling parameter according to the adjustment factor; modifying, during drilling and with the drill controller, operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter to change the measured parameter to a new measured parameter which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality and provides no reasonable limitation on what constitutes controlling the drilling operation and can conceivably cover every and any part of a drilling operation and as such, the foregoing additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
With respect to A collaring stage of drilling the borehole; sensing, with a sensor in operational communication with the drill, a measured parameter of the drill during drilling step is considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, sensor is recited at a high level of generality. Given the generality of the positioning of the sensors, the type of sensor, and the type of data collected by the sensors, these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 17:
Measured value comprises a combination of a penetration rate of the drill bit and a pulldown force of the drill bit step is considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
increasing a rotation speed of the drill bit…increasing the pull down force to a drill phase pull down force which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality and provides no reasonable assertation what constitutes controlling the drilling operation and can conceivably cover every and any part of a drilling operation and as such, the foregoing additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
Claim 18:
With respect to the processor, these elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the specification fails to disclose that these elements are anything other than generic computing elements and are even shown as black boxes on the figures. (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claim 20:
As discussed above, A drill string, a drill bit, a hoist control, a drill controller merely link the method to a particular environment or field of use. As they merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technical field of use they fail to add an invention concept to the claim. These limitations represent mere token acquiescence to limiting the reach of the claim (see Flook and MPEP 2106.5(h)).
With respect to a computer processor; a data repository; a server controller; these elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept
Additionally command the drill to drill into the subsurface region; adjust the drilling parameter according to the adjustment factor; command the drill controller to modify, during drilling, operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter to change the measured parameter to the new measured parameter which are considered an insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality and provides no reasonable limitation on what constitutes controlling the drilling operation and can conceivably cover every and any part of a drilling operation and as such, the foregoing additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
With respect to a collaring stage, a measured parameter of the drill and a new measured parameter of the drill; a reference value for the drilling parameter of the drill, wherein the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter, and wherein the drilling parameter comprises a measured value of an operation of the drill during drilling, an adjusted drilling parameter, a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value; an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter; sense…the measured parameter of the drill during drilling; the step is considered an insignificant extra solution activity as the limitations amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As noted in Electric Power Group, selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information for collection, analysis, and display is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, a sensor is recited at a high level of generality. Given the generality of the positioning of the sensors, the type of sensor, and the type of data collected by the sensors, these limitations do not contain significantly more to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
In regards to claim 2 the limitations are considered an insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality and provides no reasonable limitation on what constitutes controlling the drilling operation and executing the method and can conceivably cover every and any part of a drilling operation and as such, the foregoing additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
The various metrics of claims 3-12 merely narrow the recitation of the specific variables and data limitations are insufficient as “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas," (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Similar to claim 1, 13 and 18 this recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, and is not significantly more.
In regards to claims 13-16 with collaring/slow collaring it is unclear what exactly these stages encompass in the method. I.e. data vs method of drilling based off of paragraph [0045] and [0145] of the instant specification. Examiner assumes that the collaring stage is mere data manipulation and the collaring stages (normal, slow) are merely “apply it” however if the collaring stages are positive drilling steps required by the method claim 13 the claims would require further and different analysis under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunda (US Pub No 20210017848).
Gunda discloses in claim 1. A method of drilling a borehole, the method comprising:
drilling, with a drill, (Gunda abstract fig 1 drilling of a borehole) the borehole into a subsurface region, wherein the drill comprises a drill string (Gunda Fig 1; 28), a drill bit (Gunda Fig 1; 30) connected to the drill string, a hoist control (Gunda [0019] drilling mast comprises a feed system and cable and pulley system for movement of the drill string) connected to the drill string, and a drill controller for controlling at least one of the drill bit, the drill string, and the hoist control (Gunda Fig 2; controller, 210, controlling bit information, hole settings, pull down force, rotation torque, feed rate, and rotation speed);
identifying, based on a depth of the drill bit in the subsurface region, a collaring stage of drilling the borehole (Gunda Fig 2; 214 identifying collaring depth);
sensing, with a sensor in operational communication with the drill, a measured parameter of the drill during drilling (Gunda Fig 2; 214 collaring depth as a measured parameter of the drill provided by sensor input [0021] and feed rate, bit air pressure, pull down force, rotation torque, feed rate, rotation speed);
identifying, based on the collaring stage, a reference value for a drilling parameter (Gunda ¶ 37 threshold value of the drilling parameters set by the controller or user during drilling operations) of the drill, wherein the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter, and wherein the drilling parameter comprises a measured value of an operation of the drill during drilling (Gunda Fig 3; workflow disclosing identifying if the measured parameter (Depth, pulldown force, rotation torque rotation speed etc; ¶ 35) is a predetermined increment - i.e. "comparing. Further Fig 4 discloses the workflow to modifying the collar depth adjustment based on predetermined values);
generating a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value (Gunda Fig 3; 314 generating a difference between the predetermined increment vs the collar depth and Fig 4 monitoring drill bit inputs changing more than predetermined threshold ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occurs);
determining, from the difference, an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter (Gunda Fig 3; 314 generating a difference between the predetermined increment vs the collar depth and Fig 4 monitoring drill bit inputs changing more than predetermined threshold; ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occur and modification of the drilling parameters, such as feed rate (fig 2) occurs utilizing an adjustment factor to bring the parameter back into acceptable range of the threshold);
adjusting the drilling parameter according to the adjustment factor to generate an adjusted drilling parameter (Gunda ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occur and modification of the drilling parameters, such as feed rate (fig 2) occurs utilizing an adjustment factor to bring the parameter back into acceptable range of the threshold);
and modifying, during drilling and with the drill controller, operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter (Gunda Fig 2; 214 ¶21 drilling parameters monitored by the sensors) to change the measured parameter to a new measured parameter (Gunda ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occur and modification of the drilling parameters, such as feed rate (fig 2) occurs utilizing an adjustment factor to bring the parameter back into acceptable range of the threshold by modifying drilling operations further ¶ 41 various sensor inputs to automatically collar a hole at reaming increments).
Gunda discloses in claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
iterating, continuously, identifying the collaring stage, sensing, identifying the reference value, generating, determining, adjusting, and modifying until a stop condition is satisfied (Gunda Fig 3; 318 stop condition met and drill bit retraction (is collar depth met) [0037]-[0038] continuous monitoring and modifying drilling parameters based on adjusted parameters and modifying drilling operations via the controller the operation of the drill according to the updated parameters);
and stopping drilling when the stop condition is satisfied (Gunda Fig 3; 318 stop condition met and drill bit retraction (is collar depth met [0041] modification of the drilling operation and collaring operations to avoid jams or clogs or to end collaring operations and begin drilling operations).
Gunda discloses in claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the stop condition comprises detection of a hazard (Gunda [0038] when one or more monitored inputs changes by a predetermined threshold, controller may end the collar operation prior to reaching the set collar depth and like wise controller may end the collar operation when any of the values of the feed rate input or ration speed input changes (decreases) by more than 20% for one second and [0041] modification of the drilling operation and collaring operations to avoid jams or clogs by modifying the drilling operation when parameters change too rapidly).
Gunda discloses in claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the stop condition comprises a normal collaring stage, and wherein the collaring stage during the method is prior to the normal collaring stage (Gunda [0034] a predetermined collar depth is determined prior to drilling and then collaring operations begin to a predetermined depth).
Gunda discloses in claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the drill parameter comprises a pulldown force (Gunda Fig 2; 218) and a drill speed (Gunda Fig 2; 224), and wherein the method further comprises: setting the pulldown force to a selected pulldown force and setting the drill speed to a selected drill speed (Gunda Fig 4; [0035} & [0038] monitoring variations in measured drilling parameters compared to preset drilling parameters).
Gunda discloses in claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein: the collaring stage comprises, at a given time, one of a slow collar one stage (Gunda [0032]-[0033] more than two increments), a slow collar two stage (Gunda [0032]-[0033] more than two increments), and a normal collar stage (Gunda [0032]-[0033] more than two increments [0025] collaring hole settings allow for the setting of different increments of reaming [0032]- [0033] increments may be multiple increments of collar drilling based on depth of the col and sensor readings of the drilling operation), and the reference value is different at each one of the slow collar one stage, the slow collar two stage, and the normal collar stage (Gunda [0032]-[0033] more than two increments [0025] collaring hole settings allow for the setting of different increments of reaming [0032]- [0033] increments may be multiple increments of collar drilling based on depth of the col and sensor readings of the drilling operation [0041] disclosing that the collar can have various increments and/or modify the collar parameters).
Gunda discloses in claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein: the collaring stage comprises the slow collar one stage (Gunda [0032]-[0033] more than two increments [0025] collaring hole settings allow for the setting of different increments of reaming [0032]- [0033] increments may be multiple increments of collar drilling based on depth of the col and sensor readings of the drilling operation and a variable value of the determined in real time based on the sensed values of the collar operation), and the reference value comprises a first hoist speed (Gunda Fig 2; 222 [0035] feed rate), a first pulldown force (Gunda Fig 2; 218), and a first rotation speed (Gunda Fig 2 224 and further Fig 2-4 [0035]-[0038] modifying drilling parameters, such as bit air pressure, pull down force, rotation torque, feed rate and rotation speed, based on adjusted parameters and modifying drilling operations via the controller the operation of the drill according to the updated parameters while adjusting drilling operations based on drilling parameters exceeding threshold values with fig 2 disclosing various parameters going into the controller).
Gunda discloses in claim 8. The method of claim 7, wherein: the measured value comprises a first measured hoist speed (Gunda Fig 2; 222 [0035] feed rate), a first measured pulldown force (Gunda Fig 2; 218), and a first measured rotation speed, and the adjustment factor is proportional to at least one difference between the measured value and the reference value (Gunda Fig 2; 218) based on adjusted parameters and modifying drilling operations via the controller the operation of the drill according to the updated parameters while adjusting drilling operations based on drilling parameters, such as a percentage of the initial values, exceeding threshold values with fig 2 disclosing various parameters going into the controller).
Gunda discloses in claim 20. A drill system for drilling a borehole into a subsurface region, the drill system comprising:
a drill string (Gunda Fig 1; 28);
a drill bit (Gunda Fig 1; 30) connected to the drill string;
a hoist control (Gunda [0019] drilling mast comprises a feed system and cable and pulley system for movement of the drill string) connected to the drill string;
a drill controller for controlling at least one of the drill bit, the drill string, and the hoist control (Gunda Fig 2; controller, 210, controlling bit information, hole settings, pull down force, rotation torque, feed rate, and rotation speed);
a sensor (Gunda Fig 2; 214 collaring depth as a measured parameter of the drill provided by sensor input [0021]) in operational communication with the drill;
a computer processor in communication with the sensor (Gunda [0022] controller has processors);
a data repository (Gunda [0022] includes memory storage) in communication with the computer processor and storing:
a collaring stage (Gunda Fig 2; 214 identifying collaring depth),
a measured parameter of the drill (Gunda [0021] feed rate, bit air pressure, pull down force, rotation torque, feed rate, rotation speed) and a new measured parameter of the drill (Gunda Fig 2; 214 collaring depth as a measured parameter of the drill provided by sensor input),
a reference value for a drilling parameter of the drill (Gunda ¶ 37 threshold value of the drilling parameters set by the controller or user during drilling operations), wherein the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter (Gunda Fig 3; workflow disclosing identifying if the measured parameter (Depth, pulldown force, rotation torque rotation speed etc; ¶ 35), and wherein the drilling parameter comprises a measured value of an operation of the drill during drilling (Gunda Fig 3; workflow disclosing identifying if the measured parameter (Depth, pulldown force, rotation torque rotation speed etc) is a predetermined increment further Fig 4 discloses the workflow to modifying the collar depth adjustment based on predetermined values),
an adjusted drilling parameter, a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value (Gunda ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occur and modification of the drilling parameters, such as feed rate (fig 2) occurs utilizing an adjustment factor to bring the parameter back into acceptable range of the threshold),
an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter ((Gunda Fig 3; 314 generating a difference between the predetermined increment vs the collar depth and Fig 4 monitoring drill bit inputs changing more than predetermined threshold; ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occur and modification of the drilling parameters, such as feed rate (fig 2) occurs utilizing an adjustment factor to bring the parameter back into acceptable range of the threshold )),
a server controller (Gunda [0017] drilling machine can be controlled remotely) executable by the computer processor to:
command the drill to drill the borehole into the subsurface region (Gunda [0017] drilling machine can be controlled remotely),
identify, based on a depth of the drill bit in the subsurface region, the collaring stage of drilling the borehole (Gunda Fig 2; 214 identifying collaring depth),
sense, with the sensor, the measured parameter of the drill during drilling (Gunda [0021] feed rate, bit air pressure, pull down force, rotation torque, feed rate, rotation speed),
identify, based on the collaring stage, the reference value ((Gunda ¶ 37 threshold value (reference value) of the drilling parameters set by the controller or user during drilling operations);
generate the difference, determine, from the difference, the adjustment factor (Gunda Fig 3; 314 generating a difference between the predetermined increment vs the collar depth and Fig 4 monitoring drill bit inputs changing more than predetermined threshold ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is too great modification to the drilling operation occurs);
adjust the drilling parameter according to the adjustment factor to generate the adjusted drilling parameter (Gunda [0037]-[0038] modifying drilling parameters based on adjusted parameters);
and command the drill controller to modify, during drilling, operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter to change the measured parameter to the new measured parameter (Gunda [0037]-[0038] modifying drilling parameters based on adjusted parameters and modifying drilling operations via the controller the operation of the drill according to the updated parameters).
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) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunda from claim 1 above in further view of Keller (US Pub No 20230279767)
Gunda discloses in claim 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, from the measured parameter, that a broken ground condition is satisfied (Gunda [0032] reaming functions are occurring and breaking the ground measured drilling parameters indicate that the drill bit is operating) , wherein the measured parameter comprises a combination of a rotation speed of the drill bit (Gunda Fig 2; 224) and feed rate (Gunda Fig 2; 222) of at least one of the drill bit and the drill string, and slowing drilling, responsive to the broken ground condition being satisfied (Gunda Fig 4; [0035} & [0038] monitoring variations in measured drilling parameters compared to preset drilling parameters. "End the collar operation" - [0038] - i.e. "slowing drilling" [0041] modification of the drilling operation and collaring operations to avoid jams or clogs).
However, Gunda is silent as whether the vibration of the drill string is monitored but is strongly implied with monitoring of rotation speed and pulldown force of the drill string.
However, Keller discloses monitoring: a vibration of the drill string and drill bit (Keller [0013] [0029] monitoring vibration of the drill string in order to estimate surface weight on bit)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunda to include monitoring drill string vibrations as taught by Keller for the purpose of determining surface weight on bit (Keller [0029])
Gunda discloses in claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein slowing drilling comprises at least one of: floating the drill bit (Gunda [0033] and fig. 3, step 316: retracting or “floating the drill bit” without retracting the drill bit from the hole at lower feed rates as the increments require), and reducing a hoist speed of the drill string (Gunda [0033] and fig. 3, step 316: retracting or “floating the drill bit” without retracting the drill bit from the hole at lower feed rates as the increments require by reducing or stopping feed rate into the borehole)
Gunda discloses in claim 16. The method of claim 15, further comprising: increasing, after slowing, the rotation speed of the drill bit (Gunda [0032] the collar settings may include a rotation speed and feed rate lower than a rotation speed and feed rate during the non-collar drilling operations (hereinafter “drilling operation”)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gunda from claim 1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gunda in view of Stacy (US Pub No 20120255775).
Gunda discloses in claim 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the measured value comprises a combination of a penetration rate(Gunda [0025] monitoring hole depth and penetration rate being a function of change in depth over time) of the drill bit and a pulldown force (Gunda [0038] monitoring of the pull down force) of the drill bit (Gunda [0037]-[0038] modifying drilling parameters based on adjusted parameters and modifying drilling operations via the controller the operation of the drill according to the updated parameters), and wherein the method further comprises:
determining that the penetration rate is less than a predetermined percentage of a predetermined collaring penetration rate (Gunda ¶ 37-38 predetermined threshold (reference value) is compared with the measured drilling parameters and if the range (difference) is less than the desired conditions then modification to the drilling operation occur and modification of the drilling parameters, such as pull down force (fig 2) occurs utilizing an adjustment factor to bring the parameter back into acceptable range of the threshold), determining that the pulldown force is greater than a predetermined collaring pulldown force (Gunda [0038] pulldown force exceeds preset value), determining that, responsive to both determining the penetration rate and the pulldown force, a competent ground condition exists (Gunda [0041] desired hole conditions are met), and increasing a rotation speed of the drill bit to a drill phase rotation speed (Gunda [0032] increasing speed at the drill bit when changing from collaring to drilling operations; [0082] "move on to the drilling phase which typically occurs at a high rate of penetration or drilling") and increasing the pulldown force (Gunda [0032] increasing speed at the drill bit and [0027] applying greater weight on bit by increasing pulldown force [0038] both occur when the measured values are less than the predetermined values) to a drill phase pulldown force (Gunda Fig 3 & 4 [0036]-[0038] modifying drilling parameters based on adjusted parameters and modifying drilling operations via the controller the operation of the drill according to the updated parameters while adjusting drilling operations based on drilling parameters exceeding threshold values).
Alternatively, as Gunda does not specifically teach rate of penetration, Stacy teaches that the penetration rate is determined by the change in depth over period of time (Stacy [0083])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunda to include rate of penetration data as taught by Stacy for the purpose of determining changes in subsurface conditions at the bit as the rate of penetration changes.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunda from claim 1 above in further view of Gariepy (US Pub no 20210164335) & Keller (US Pub No 20230279767)
Gunda discloses in claim 18. The method of claim 1 however Gunda is silent as to a use of a machine learning model.
However, Gariepy discloses an electric drill system used in collaring operations: further comprising: embedding data describing a plurality of holes previously drilled by the drill (Gariepy [0032]-[0033] discloses utilizing historical drilling data into a machine learning model [0040] utilizing historical rock data to associate with stored depth) into and executing, by a processor, a machine learning model (Gariepy [0032]-[0033] discloses utilizing historical drilling data into a machine learning model to optimize the drilling process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a machine learning model as in Gariepy in the system executing the method of Gunda. As in Gariepy, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a machine learning model to Gunda's invention with the predictable result of optimizing the drilling procedure as needed in Gunda.
Gunda in view of Gariepy teach a machine learning model but are silent as various data architectures for machine learning.
However, Keller teaches a machine learning model comprises: a vector data structure and a vector data structure to predict the reference value either prior to drilling or during drilling (Keller [0029] machine learning model comprises a support vector machine [0032] various input vectors constructed via sensor data provided [0035] assigning specific weight to data points).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gunda et al to include vector data structure in the machine learning model as taught by Keller for the purpose of predicting possible drilling parameter modifications based on rock and soil composition.
Gunda et al discloses in claim 19. The method of claim 18, further comprising: further embedding the measured value into the vector data structure (Keller [0029] machine learning model comprises a support vector machine [0032] various input vectors constructed via sensor data provided [0035] assigning specific weight to data points), wherein executing is performed during drilling, and wherein the reference value(Gunda ¶ 37 threshold value of the drilling parameters set by the controller or user during drilling operations) is predicted based on a combination of the plurality of holes and the measured value (Keller [0040] estimation (prediction of a downhole parameter) utilizing the vector data structure [0029] machine learning model comprises a support vector machine [0032] various input vectors constructed via sensor data provided [0035] assigning specific weight to data points from historical data).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 9:
Auto-drillers are well known in the art of wellbore exploration and operations. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Gunda (US Pub No 20210017848) and Gariepy (US Pub No 20210164335). This art, alone or in combination, discloses various structures related to drilling a borehole utilizing various recited features including but not limited to, such as a drilling rig, a drill string, a drill bit, a hoist, a controller, sensors, processors, data storage, servers, machine learning models and utilizing the equipment to complete collaring operations and drilling operations via measuring drilling parameters such as hoist speed, pulldown force, and rotation speed. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps regarding the specific positional relationships and operations between each recited structure in operation, such as the adjustment factor is greater than one, then the adjustment factor is applied to the first pulldown force, and when the adjustment factor is less than one, then the adjustment factor is applied to the first hoist speed and include all the limitations of independent claim 1 and all the preceding claims 6-8. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known or easily conceived in the art and thus, and could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant method clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, combinations, and the method of use which require a greater effort than just combining known structures. Furthermore, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner could find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. The same is similarly true of claims 10 & 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stacey (US Pub No 20120255775): Invention substantially meets the limitations of claim 1 regrading modification of a collaring stage utilizing drilling parameters measured with a sensor.
Peltomaa (US Pub No 2026092520): Teaches an intelligent drilling apparatus with utilizing a machine learning model to establish stop and start conditions and modify drilling parameters for optimization in collaring operations and drilling operations.
Venugopal (US Pat No 11441411): Automatic drilling control utilizing a machine learning model with integrated historical data and real-time sensor data from the drill string.
Wang (US Pub No 20120118637): Drilling operations control method relying on statistical models to modify the drilling parameters when abnormal drilling conditions or events occur.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas D Wlodarski whose telephone number is (571)272-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/NICHOLAS D WLODARSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676