Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 14-19, 21-24 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 .
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 1-8, 14-19, 21-24 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, 17-19, 21-23 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; the reference value is different at each one of the slow collar one stage, a slow collar two stage, and a normal collar stage…; generating a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value; determining, from the difference, an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter…the adjustment factor limits the first pulldown force to a maximum comprising a reference pulldown force; generate an adjusted drilling parameter;
Claim 21: 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; the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter; the reference value is different at each one of the slow collar one stage, a slow collar two stage, and a normal collar stage; 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 22: 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; the reference value is comparable to the measured parameter; the reference value is different at each one of a slow collar one stage, the slow collar two stage, and a normal collar stage; the reference value comprises a second hoist speed, a second pulldown force, and a second rotation speed, relative to, for the slow collar one stage, a first hoist speed, a first pulldown force, and a first rotation speed; generating a difference between the measured parameter and the reference value; determining from the difference an adjustment factor to the drilling parameter…the adjustment factor limits the first pulldown force to a maximum comprising a reference pulldown force; generate an adjusted drilling parameter
Dependent claims 17-19, 23
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…
Claim 23: the reference value comprises a third hoist speed, a third pulldown force, and a third rotation speed;
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, 17-19, 21-23 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 wherein the collaring stage comprises a slow collar stage one; sensing, with a sensor in operational communication with the drill, a measured parameter of the drill during drilling; the reference value is different at each one of the slow collar one stage, a slow collar two stage and a normal collar stage; the reference value comprises a first hoist speed, a first pulldown force, and a first rotation speed; wherein the adjustment factor limits the first pulldown force to a maximum comprising a reference pulldown force 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 21:
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 wherein the collaring stage comprises a slow collar stage one; 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 22:
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 wherein the collaring stage comprises a slow collar stage one; 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 23:
The third hoist speed is higher than the second hoist speed, the third pulldown force is higher than the second pulldown force, and the third rotation speed is higher than the second rotation speed 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 the reference value is different at each one of the slow collar one stage, a slow collar two stage and a normal collar stage; the reference value comprises a first hoist speed, a first pulldown force, and a first rotation speed; wherein the adjustment factor limits the first pulldown force to a maximum comprising a reference pulldown force 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 21:
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)).
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”.
A collaring stage of drilling the borehole wherein the collaring stage comprises a slow collar stage one; 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 22:
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)).
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”.
A collaring stage of drilling the borehole wherein the collaring stage comprises a slow collar stage one; 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 23:
The third hoist speed is higher than the second hoist speed, the third pulldown force is higher than the second pulldown force, and the third rotation speed is higher than the second rotation speed 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)).
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 3-8, 23-24 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 14-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to Claims 14-17 & 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112b of Claims 14-17 & 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to Claims 1-8 & 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 102(a)1 of Claims 1-8 & 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to Claims 14-16 & 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 of Claims 1-8 & 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the indicated allowable subject matter of claims 9-13, Examiner noted for the applicant of the possible allowable subject matter over prior art, however, claims 9-13 are still rejected under 35 USC 101. As applicant did not amend the claims to overcome the current 35 USC 101 the rejection stands.
Furthermore, Applicants argument regarding that modifying…operation of the drill according to the adjusted drilling parameter is unpersuasive and is are considered an insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to any possible outcome being considered an appropriate action which is a form of insignificant extra-solution action and does not explicitly disclose an appropriate action in the operation of the wellbore (e.g., a practical application). As such, the foregoing additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it”. Specifically, it is unclear how the operation is being modified according to the adjusted drilling parameter, is the hoist speed changing? The pulldown force? The rotation speed? All three? Therefore, the Examiners positions is that the limitation amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it”.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights