DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendments to claims 1 and 14 overcome the rejection under 101. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1-17, 19 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The amendment to claim 5 overcomes the rejection under 112(b). Therefore, the rejection to the claim has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive; however, claims 1 and 14 have been rejected under new grounds because Annaiyappa does not teach “varying a amplitude of a top drive”. Therefore, the amendments overcome the prior art rejection of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the Applicant argues “claim 1 as amended recites generating the friction profile based on ‘dynamic torque data’ obtained from sensors and measured with respect to the measured depths. Annaiyappa describes friction propagation from the surface, which would not teach or suggest dynamic torque data at measured depths, which is quite different.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Regarding claims 1 and 14, the amended limitation of “generate a profile of friction at the plurality of measured depths in the borehole based on dynamic torque data obtained from one or more surface or downhole sensors” is taught by Annaiyappa because torque data is measured by one or more sensors adapted to detect the torque profile received from the drill string 120 (pp[0047]). Furthermore, the torque profile is then used to adjust the frictional model which is created by friction values (friction profile) (pp[0047],[0048] [0050]).
Furthermore, regarding the recitation of “alter at least one drilling operation by varying both a speed and amplitude of a top drive of the drilling system” in claims 1 and 14, Annaiyappa teaches “varying a speed of a top drive of the drilling system” because adjusting a control parameter for the drilling operation includes adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed which is done by altering a speed of the drill string at a top drive or drive unit (pp[0016], [0054]). Annaiyappa does not explicitly teach “varying a amplitude of a top drive” which forces the reader to look elsewhere for such teachings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaiyappa (U.S. Publication No. 20200063533) in view of Jeffryes et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210131259).
Regarding claim 1, Annaiyappa teaches a drilling system comprising:
a drill string (120; Fig. 1) located in a borehole (112);
one or more processors (a logic device 130, such as a microprocessor; pp[0055]); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors (logic device 130 can be coupled with a memory device 132;pp[0055]) the memory comprising instructions configured to cause the drilling system to (pp[0055]):
determine a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string (The mud travel time data, actual rotation travel time data, theoretical rotation travel time data, and other travel time data can be used to determine a resistance to movement, i.e. friction, of the drill string in the wellbore 112; pp[0017], [0027], [0031]), wherein each of the plurality of friction values corresponds to one of a plurality of measured depths (A wellbore friction model can be created based on the friction values calculated along the wellbore. The friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore; pp[0018], [0048]);
generate a profile of friction at the plurality of measured depths in the borehole based on dynamic torque data obtained from one or more surface or downhole sensors (bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly associated with the bit 104) can be adapted to measure a torque profile. The bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly) can include one or more sensors adapted to detect the occurrence of the torque; pp[0047]), The torque profile is then used to adjust the frictional model which is created by friction values (friction profile);(pp[0047],[0048] [0050])) and measured with respect to each of the plurality of measured depths in the borehole (the amount of friction calculated at the previous location should be removed from the friction values at the current location to determine the incremental change in the friction profile that has occurred when the drill string was extended into the wellbore the distance from the last location to the current location. As the drill string is further extended into the wellbore, this process can be repeated to develop an incremental friction profile of the wellbore that can be used to develop a friction model of the wellbore; pp[0017], [0018], [0041], [0048]); and
based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the plurality of measured depths, alter at least one drilling operation (adjusting 210 a control parameter of the wellbore in view of the friction model. By way of non-limiting example, adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust at least one operation including: tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104, adjustment of wellbore 112 fluid flow rate, adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed, adjustment of drill string 120 torque, determining movements of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120, or any combination thereof; pp[0054]) by varying a speed a top drive of the drilling system (adjusting a control parameter for the drilling operation includes adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed which is done by altering a speed of the drill string at a top drive or drive unit (pp[0016], [0054])).
Annaiyappa is silent regarding varying an amplitude of a top drive of the drilling system.
Jeffryes, drawn to controlling a drilling operation, discloses varying an amplitude of a top drive of the drilling system (causing the top drive 116 to vary rotational speed of and/or torque input to the drill string 120 based on the rotational speed command 224 and/or the torque command 244, respectively, to reduce amplitude of the rotational waves traveling along the drill string 120; pp[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Annaiyappa such that the top drive rotational speed is varied to reduce amplitude, as taught by Jeffryes, in order to prevent, mitigate, inhibit, or otherwise reduce rotational waves (e.g., torsional vibrations, oscillations, and/or resonances) at the fundamental frequency and higher order resonant frequencies that are traveling along the drill string (pp[0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Annaiyappa teaches a method performed by a drilling system comprising:
applying movement to a drill string of the drilling system (rotation of the drill string 120 via top drive or drive unit; pp[0017], [0025], [0032], the drill string disposed in a borehole (112; Fig. 1);
determining a plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string, wherein each of the plurality of friction values corresponds to one of a plurality of measured depths (the amount of friction calculated at the previous location should be removed from the friction values at the current location to determine the incremental change in the friction profile that has occurred when the drill string was extended into the wellbore the distance from the last location to the current location. Therefore, each of the plurality of friction values corresponds to one of a plurality of measured depths ; pp[0017], [0018], [0041], [0048])), including generating a profile of friction at a respective plurality of depths in the borehole based on dynamic torque data (torque data is measured by one or more sensors adapted to detect the torque profile received from the drill string 120;pp[0047], The torque profile is then used to adjust the frictional model which is created by friction values (friction profile);(pp[0047],[0048] [0050]) measured with respect to each of the depths in the borehole (the amount of friction calculated at the previous location should be removed from the friction values at the current location to determine the incremental change in the friction profile that has occurred when the drill string was extended into the wellbore the distance from the last location to the current location. As the drill string is further extended into the wellbore, this process can be repeated to develop an incremental friction profile of the wellbore that can be used to develop a friction model of the wellbore; pp[0017], [0018], [0041], [0048]); and
based on the determined plurality of friction values as a function of the respective plurality of depths, altering at least one drilling operation (adjusting 210 a control parameter of the wellbore in view of the friction model. By way of non-limiting example, adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust at least one operation including: tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104, adjustment of wellbore 112 fluid flow rate, adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed, adjustment of drill string 120 torque, determining movements of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120, or any combination thereof; pp[0054]), by varying a speed a top drive of the drilling system (adjusting a control parameter for the drilling operation includes adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed which is done by altering a speed of the drill string at a top drive or drive unit (pp[0016], [0054])).
Annaiyappa is silent regarding varying an amplitude of a top drive of the drilling system.
Jeffryes, drawn to controlling a drilling operation, discloses varying an amplitude of a top drive of the drilling system (causing the top drive 116 to vary rotational speed of and/or torque input to the drill string 120 based on the rotational speed command 224 and/or the torque command 244, respectively, to reduce amplitude of the rotational waves traveling along the drill string 120; pp[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Annaiyappa such that the top drive rotational speed is varied to reduce amplitude, as taught by Jeffryes, in order to prevent, mitigate, inhibit, or otherwise reduce rotational waves (e.g., torsional vibrations, oscillations, and/or resonances) at the fundamental frequency and higher order resonant frequencies that are traveling along the drill string (pp[0041]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Annaiyappa further teaches (or substantially similar to) wherein the plurality of friction values are determined and the profile of friction is generated when a bit of the drilling system is on bottom (this is implicit because the friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore, i.e. on bottom; pp[0018], Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Annaiyappa further teaches (or substantially similar to) wherein the plurality of friction values are determined and the profile of friction is generated when a bit of the drilling system is off bottom (this is implicit because the friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore, i.e. off bottom; pp[0018], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Annaiyappa further teaches wherein the dynamic data comprises a plurality of torque values corresponding to torsional movement of the drill string (at least one of the drill string 120 and bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly associated with the bit 104) can be adapted to measure a received torque profile; pp[0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Annaiyappa teaches wherein the dynamic data comprises a plurality of torque values generated (bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly associated with the bit 104) can be adapted to measure a received torque profile or a received speed profile from the dill string 120. The bit 104 (or bottom hole assembly) can include one or more sensors adapted to detect the occurrence of the torque; pp[0047]) by applying oscillatory movement to the drill string (the drilling string will experience some degree of oscillatory movement during drilling.)
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Annaiyappa further teaches (or substantially similar to) wherein the instructions configured to cause the drilling system to alter at least one drilling operation further comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to perform one or more of: adjusting a spindle position based on one or more of the plurality of friction values in the borehole; responsive to an identified increase in friction, adjusting one or more drilling parameters to mitigate one or more of: hole cleaning, a stuck pipe, tortuosity; increasing a block velocity upon determining an increase in the one or more of the plurality of friction values; or applying a modified torque on a bottom hole assembly during rotary drilling, including increasing the block velocity by an amount corresponding to a computed lost torque as a function of the one or more of the plurality of friction values (adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust a wellbore control parameter such as adjusting a valve on a mud pump, altering a torque or speed of the drill string 120 at a drive unit 118, adjusting or tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104 or other portion of the bottom hole assembly, adjusting the movement of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120, or a combination thereof performed to control a wellbore 112; pp[0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Annaiyappa further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the drilling system to: display a visualization of the determined plurality of friction values on a display of the drilling system (the system 100 can include a display apparatus 128 adapted to display the electronic data, or a representation thereof, on a user-viewable display. The display apparatus 128 can be adapted to display electronic data corresponding to the friction model on a user-viewable display; pp[0039], [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Annaiyappa and Jeffryes teaches the drilling system of claim 1.
Annaiyappa further teaches wherein the instructions configured to determine the plurality of friction values between the borehole and the drill string comprise instructions configured to determine friction (A wellbore friction model can be created based on the friction values calculated along the wellbore. The friction values calculated at each location of the wellbore can include all friction acting on the drill string when the drill bit (or BHA) is at that location in the wellbore; pp[0018], [0048]).
Annaiyappa discloses the need to accurately determine or correct wellbore operations such as stiction or even kinetic friction (pp[0006]) but the combination of Annaiyappa and Jeffryes does not specify if the friction is a forward static friction, a reverse static friction, or an average static friction.
However, there are a limited number of types of static frictions to compute and the drill string of Annaiyappa primarily moves forwards and backwards (Fig. 1: The borehole may have any suitable subterranean configuration, such as generally vertical and horizontal) and Annaiyappa discusses overcoming static friction (pp[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the drilling system of the combination of Annaiyappa and Jeffryes to compute a specific forward or backward static friction in order to prevent damage to the drilling system (pp[0058]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Annaiyappa further teaches (or substantially similar to) the instructions further comprising instructions configured to cause the drilling system to: determine whether a friction value of the plurality of friction values exceeds a threshold or falls outside a target range therefor (Its implicit that aa friction value of the plurality exceeds a threshold because Annaiyappa seeks to reduce friction; pp[0054],[0207])), and perform a corrective action responsive to determining that the friction value exceeds the threshold or falls outside the target range therefor (adjusting 210 the control parameter can adjust at least one operation including: tracking rotational orientation of a portion of the face 108 of the bit 104, adjustment of wellbore 112 fluid flow rate, adjustment of drill string 120 rotational speed, adjustment of drill string 120 torque, determining movements of the drill string 120 to reduce friction along the drill string 120; pp[0054]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Annaiyappa and Jeffryes teaches the drilling system of claim 1.
Annaiyappa further teaches wherein the instructions configured to determine the plurality of friction values comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to fit a model to a measured plurality of torques ( the frictional model can be adjusted by comparing the input torque profile, as caused at or near the surface, to the received torque profile; pp[0050]) to determine one or more of friction (pp[0050]).
While Annaiyappa discloses the need to accurately determine or correct wellbore operations such as stiction or even kinetic friction (pp[0006]) but the combination of Annaiyappa and Jeffryes does not specify if the friction is a forward static friction, a reverse static friction, or an average static friction.
However, there are a limited number of types of static frictions to compute and the drill string of Annaiyappa primarily moves forwards and backwards (Fig. 1: The borehole may have any suitable subterranean configuration, such as generally vertical and horizontal) and Annaiyappa discusses overcoming static friction (pp[0058]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) or at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ), to have modified the drilling system of the combination of Annaiyappa and Jeffryes to compute a specific forward or backward static friction in order to prevent damage to the drilling system (pp[0058]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Annaiyappa further teaches determine the plurality of friction values comprise instructions configured to cause the drilling system to: determine a first friction parameter at a first measured depth of the borehole; advance the drill string in the borehole; and determine a second friction parameter at a second measured depth of the borehole (the friction values can be calculated at a plurality of approximately equally spaced locations in the wellbore or at a plurality of approximately equally spaced apart time periods during drilling operations. Therefore, a first friction parameter is measured at a first measured depth of the borehole and a second friction parameter is measured at a second measured depth of the borehole as the depths are equally spaced apart; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Annaiyappa further teaches wherein each of the plurality of measured depths are different (the friction values can be calculated at a plurality of approximately equally spaced locations in the wellbore or at a plurality of approximately equally spaced apart time periods during drilling operations. Therefore, each friction value will be measured at different depths that are equally spaced apart; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Annaiyappa teaches wherein each of the plurality of friction values is determined at a survey point (the friction values can be calculated at a plurality of approximately equally spaced locations in the wellbore or at a plurality of approximately equally spaced apart time periods during drilling operations. Therefore, each location where a friction value is measure is “a survey point”; pp[0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Annaiyappa teaches wherein the movement comprises one or more of: torsional movement or oscillatory angular movement (adjusting the rotational speed of the drill string 120 can be performed by adjusting a speed or torque of the drive unit 118; pp[0041]. Adjusting speed or torque of the drilling operation will cause torsional movement or oscillatory angular movement.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Lamia Quaim whose telephone number is (469)295-9199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM - 6PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAMIA QUAIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights