DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. All currently pending claims have been considered below. 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
No IDS has been filed in the present case. If applicable, the Examiner respectfully notes Applicant's duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability, as per MPEP §609, and the time limits for such a filing set forth under 37 CFR 1.97.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
While the examiner does not require every "sensor" variation in fig 1 be shown in exacting detail, the drawings show various generic ranging techniques at relatively high levels of generality. However, claim 1 recites numerous alternative "sensors" as inventive and patentable features, thus warranting a reasonable level of detail shown in the drawings to support these numerous alternatives. This is discussed in more detail in the 112(b) rejections below.
The "accelerometer" and how it differs from the "multi-axis accelerometer" (claims 1 & 14) and the "acceleration sensor" (claim 3).
The "MEMs mirror" arrangement, the "LIDAR" arrangement, and how they structurally differ from each other (claims 1, 10, 11, & 14).
The "optical sensor" versus the "camera", and how they structurally differ from each other (claim 1).
The "acceleration sensor" versus the "position sensor", and how they differ from each other, (claim 3) as well as how both these sensors differ relative to the sensors in parent claim 1. Are the sensors of claim 1 not "position sensors" in claimed function?
The "threshold detector" of claim 6 is not shown.
The MEMS "configuration" of claim 11 is not shown. The drawings merely show time of flight type arrangements.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 114 & 120, fig 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 10, & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: The phrase "at the least one processor is in data communication" in line 6 appear to contain a typo somewhere, but the examiner is unsure of Applicant's intended phrasing.
Claim 7: The phrase "(mud) flow" should be "mud flow" as the parenthetical only confuses the claim.
Claim 10 recites "where in the sensor is a LIDAR sensor" which should read "wherein the sensor is the LIDAR sensor" and the LIDAR sensor is already recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites "wherein the sensor is a Microelectromechanical mirror system (MEMS)" which should read "wherein the sensor is the MEMS mirror" as MEMS mirror is already recited in parent claim 1. If Applicant would like to leave in the full recitation of "microelectromechanical mirror system (MEMS)", the examiner respectfully suggests it be added to claim 1 for the first recitation of this feature, not in a dependent claim after it has already been recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a "written description" rejection per MPEP 2163.03, subsection V - Original Claim Not Sufficiently Described (emphasis added):
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Claim 11 recites "[T]he system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a Microelectromechanical mirror system (MEMS) configured to create 3D optical spatial maps of the drill rig or parts thereof". As similarly discussed in the drawing objections above, there is simply no "configuration" shown that is commensurate with this limitation. Applicant provides no disclosure regarding the present configuration and no details of actual implementation. This is neither disclose as well known, or incorporated from an other reference. Rather, this limitation is only discussed in the specification in ipsis verbis as it found in the claims; see as-filed paragraphs [00189] & [00192].
Rather, claim 11 is presented in the claims as a patentable, novel feature. But the disclosure has no details in the drawings or specification. The examiner respectfully asserts the above bolded emphasis are directly applicable to the present case: The limitations are mostly functional, and there is no detailed disclosure thereof.
MPEP 2161.01, subsection I:
Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. Id.; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172. The function of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession of the specific subject matter later claimed as of the filing date of the application relied on; how the specification accomplishes this is not material. In re Herschler, 591 F.2d 693, 700-01, 200 USPQ 711, 717 (CCPA 1979), further reiterated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 217 USPQ 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also MPEP §§ 2163 - 2163.04.
…
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement").
The examiner notes that the skill of PHOSITA is not really a factor in this, especially when the limitations are not acknowledged as well known or conventional. Claim 11 recites a specific "configuration" that is not shown or discussed, and which produces a specific output beyond merely measuring ROP, presumably using computer software implementation that is likewise not taught (see the Lizardtech discussion in MPEP 2161.01).
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The examiner initially respectfully notes that there are a relatively significant number of 112(b) issues below, mostly resulting from unclearly differentiated / apparently redundant structure / function. The examiner has attempted to identify all such issues below. But in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner respectfully requests Applicant's Representative proactively reviews the claims for similar issues. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent terminology should be used through any given claim set.
Independent claim 1 is respectfully held as indefinite for the following reasons.
First, the use of "or other tool" is, almost by definition, indefinite. It is an omnibus type recitation that attempts to encompass literally every conceivable tool without metes or bounds. Further, the limitation is significantly broader than the supported scope of the as-filed specification, thus potentially creating a 112(a) issue. However, the examiner opts for a 112(b) rejection at this time as the most appropriate rejection for the recitation as currently worded.
Second, the claim recites both a "sensor to provide an indication of rate and/or distance a drill bit… advances into a borehole" and the "sensor [provides] a sensed indication of an incremental distance traveled relative to a fixed point" with no apparently relationship to each other. Are these not the same "indications"? As currently recited the "sensor" provides two distinct "indications" in an apparently redundant (or at least unclearly recited) manner.
Third, the examiner respectfully holds "the at least one sensor is selected from the group comprising…" Markush limitation (MPEP 2117) as being indefinite because it is unclear how or if several of the options therein differ from each other. Alternative limitations must be clearly differentiated from each other and it is improper to have a broad genus together with a narrow species within that genus in the same Markush group; i.e. "selected from the group comprising: a vehicle or a truck" (a "truck" is a "vehicle").
For example: It is unclear how or if "an electromagnetic wave sensor" (a broad genus) differs from "LIDAR", "MEMS mirror", "radar sensor", "optical sensor", "camera", "microwave sensor", or "infrared sensor" (all narrower species). All of the narrower species use electromagnetic waves and therefore are "electromagnetic wave sensors". Put another way, is "an optical sensor" different than "an electromagnetic wave sensor" or is it a more specific example of "an electromagnetic wave sensor"? The examiner asserts it is the second, and therefore unclear in the Markush group. If they are different, the examiner is unclear as to the differences in light of the specification.
Similarly, it is unclear how or if "LIDAR" (which stands for "light detection and ranging"), "MEMS mirror" (which uses lasers), "an optical sensor" (which clearly uses light), "a camera" (ibid), all differ from each other at the level of generality current recited. In Applicant's attempt to encompass every conceivable type of sensor they have submitted alternatives that are unclearly differentiated from each other.
Similarly, "MEMS mirrors" are often used in/together with LIDAR systems, thus further illustrating the indefiniteness between the two recitations. This is well illustrated by present as-filed ¶ 192: "…a MEMS scanner module for 3D distance measurement using a laser/LIDAR sender/transmitter…"
Similarly, "a resistance sensor" appears to be a more general genus fully encompassing the narrower species of "a magneto-resistive sensor".
Similarly, "an accelerometer" appears to be a more general genus fully encompassing the narrower species of "a multi-axis accelerometer".
Finally, Claim 1 recites towards the end of the claim an alternative Markush grouping. However, the final two entries in that grouping is recited as "an infrared sensor and a gyposcopic sensor", lacking what is usually called an "Oxford comma" between them. This renders claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear if "an infrared sensor and a gyroscopic sensor" are one selection or if they are alternatives. In light of the specification, they would appear to be alternatives, and therefore should be recited as "an infrared sensor, and a gyposcopic sensor".
In summary, as similarly discussed in the parent case (US 17/923,229, now US patent 12,460,530) on pages 7 & 8 of the non-final rejection mailed 1/30/2024, Applicant's recitations of a combination of generic and specific features creates undue and unclear multiplicity. In Applicant's attempt to recite the claim as broadly as possible and to cover as many sensor types as possible, they have submitted several elements which are either redundant or unclearly differentiated that adds ambiguity rather than clarity to the claim.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites "or other tool" which is held as indefinite as similarly described for claim 1 above.
Claim 3 recites "the at least one sensor including an acceleration sensor and/or position sensor". It is unclear how or if these newly recited generalized sensors differ from the comparable entries in the Markush grouping already in claim 1. How does the "acceleration sensor" in claim 3 differ from either the "accelerometer" or "multi-axis accelerometer" of parent claim 1? How does the "position sensor" of claim 3 differ from all of the "sensors" already in claim 1 that "provide an indication of incremental distance traveled relative to a fixed point"? Are all the sensors in claim 1 not reasonably "position sensors" given the overall claim phrasing?
Claim 4 is held as indefinite for several reasons.
First, the claim simultaneously recites "periodically measur[ing]" parameters, thereby defining "an elapsed time between the periodic measurements" that is "based on the sample frequency of the sensor". But then the claim also recites that "at least one of the ROP, and change in ROP is out in real or near real time". This appears to be a contradiction that would require outputs more frequently than inputs. At the level of generality currently recited, the examiner is unclear how these two operate together in light of the specification. As-filed ¶ 149 treats them as alternatives, not a combination: "feedback of the continuously or periodically monitored ROP". Similarly, as-filed ¶ 48 states "The rate of penetration (ROP) measurement can be in real time or near real time since the one or more sensors provides respective measurement signals during drilling, and preferably on a continuous, near continuous or, if preferred, a periodic basis."
Second, claim 4 recites "or other tool" at least three time, which is held as indefinite as similarly described for claim 1 above.
Third, it is unclear how or if "periodically measure a parameter value indicative of relative distance between a component on a mast or drill string which moves vertically with progression… and a fixed position on the drill rig" (and the subsequent "the periodically measured parameter values") differs from the "sensed indication of an incremental distance traveled relative to a fixed point".
Fourth, it is unclear how or if "the received parameter values" (line 7) differs from the "periodically measured parameter values" discussed in the above paragraph. Consistent nomenclature should be used through any given claim set.
Fifth, it is unclear how or if "a drill bit" differs from the "a drill bit" recitation already in parent claim 1. Proper antecedent terminology should be used; "a" or "an" for the first recitation and "the" or "said" for subsequent references thereto.
Sixth, it is unclear how or if the "an incremental distance the drill bit… advances into a borehole during the elapsed time" (lines 8 & 9) differ from "incremental distance traveled relative to a fixed point" already in parent claim 1.
Seventh, it is unclear how or if the "a measure of the rate of penetration (ROP) of the drill bit" (line 9) differs from the "a measure of the rate of penetration" already recited in parent claim 1.
Finally, it is unclear how or if the "a fixed position on the drill rig" in claim 4 differs from the "a fixed point" in parent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites "the parameter value… is a time of flight measurement [and] the sensor apparatus includes a sender and a detector, wherein the sender is arranged to emit a signal to be detected by the detector after traveling the distance…" This "sensor apparatus" structure is recited with no relationship to any of the "sensors" in the Markush group of claim 1. It is unclear how or if the "sender and detector" (and the signal emission between them) differs from at least the "electromagnetic wave sensor", "LIDAR sensor", "MEMS mirror", "radar sensor", "optical sensor", "camera", "microwave sensor", and "infrared sensor" in claim 1. For example, with respect to figure 7, Applicant themselves describe "transmitter/sender 200" and "detector/receiver 204" as being "an EM (optical, laser, IR)" system in as-filed ¶ 180. But the features of claim 5 do not attempt to further define the "sensors" of claim 1. Rather claim 5 recites new additional features to the previously recited sensors.
Similarly, it is unclear how or if the "sensor assembly" structure recited in claim 5 as a whole differ from the "sensors" recited in claim 1. How many sensors are required by the system versus how many are seemingly redundantly recited in the claims?
Further, it is unclear how or if "the fixed point" in claim 5 (lines 5 & 6) differ from the "a fixed position on the drill rig" in claim 4 and/or the "a fixed point" in parent claim 1.
Finally, it is unclear how or if claim 5 operates in a system that doesn't use time-of-flight type EM emission sensors, as is allowed by claim 1. In other words, how does claim 5 operate in a system that only uses a gyroscope per claim 1? In this manner, claim 5 could be said to be contradictory to, or at least unclear recited relative to, the sensor features of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites "at least one threshold detector, wherein the threshold detector provides an alert when optimisation parameters have dropped below a preferred state". This is held to be indefinite in light of the specification as no "threshold detector" is shown or discussed in any detail (see the drawing objections above), nor what constitutes an "optimisation parameter" relative to any of the other parameters and variables measured. Further, given the phrasing of the claim, this could potentially be viewed as a 112(f) "means-plus-function" recitation (generic, functional placeholders, followed by a functional recitation, and no structure) which would fail 112(a) as well for not having any structure disclosed.
Claim 7 recites "the at least one sensor apparatus is configured to interface with other sensors…" While not improper per se, "configured to" means that the following functional limitation is directed to the "sensor apparatus". This, in turn, implies that any newly recited structure following "configured to" is arguably not required by the claim ("A truck configured to tow a trailer" is not a requirement of the trailer itself). The examiner therefore holds claim 7 indefinite because it is unclear how or if it further limits claim 1, and whether or not the "sensors or sensor arrangements/apparatus" are actually required by the claim or not.
Further, regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, the phrase "sensors or sensor arrangements/apparatus" is held to be indefinite because it is unclear how or if a "sensor" differs from "a sensor arrangement" or "a sensor apparatus". Applicant's use of alternative phrasing implies some difference between these features. If there is no difference between them, the phrases are redundant and muddy the metes and bound of the claim.
Further, parent claim 1 already recites measuring / detecting several of the parameters recited in claim 7. In other words, how does the "measure acceleration" in claim 7 differ from the "accelerometer" and "multi-axis accelerometer" already in claim 1? How does the "gyroscopic values" of claim 7 differ from the "gyroscope" already in claim 1? The same can be said for most of the other parameters as well.
Claim 9, similar to claim 5 above, recites structure therein that appears to be elements of the "sensor" of claim 1, but which are recited with no real relationship to claim 1. It is unclear how or if the "transmitter/sender" and the "detector/receiver" (and the signal emission between them) differs from at least the "electromagnetic wave sensor", "LIDAR sensor", "MEMS mirror", "radar sensor", "optical sensor", "camera", "microwave sensor", and "infrared sensor" in claim 1.
Further, what if claim 1 requires a sensor that doesn't use the features of claim 9? How does claim 9 operate in such a situation?
It is unclear how or if the "fixed part of the drill rig" differs from the "a fixed point" already in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites "the LIDAR sensor configured to identify (i) a reference/datum point and (ii) movement relative to that reference/datum point". The examiner holds this to be indefinite because it is unclear how or if it differs from the "distance a drill bit or other tool advances into a borehole" and "an incremental distance traveled relative to a fixed point" already in parent claim 1. In light of the specification, these appear to be the same features recited separately with differing phrasing.
Claim 12 recites "to power the apparatus or system". Is "apparatus" intended to be directed to the "sensor apparatus" of claim 1? If so, consistent nomenclature should be used. Otherwise it is unclear what "apparatus" is being referenced, as everything in claim 1 is an apparatus.
Independent claim 13 recites "at least one sensor apparatus" and then recites "a sensor output", but never links the "sensor output" to the "sensor apparatus". Does the "sensor output" come from the "sensor apparatus" or from some other feature, recited or un-recited?
Similarly, the claim references "a sample frequency of the sensor" in line 5. Is this the "sensor apparatus"? Consistent nomenclature should be used through any given claim set. Claims 14 & 15 depend from claim 13.
Claim 14 recites "the at least one sensor" which lacks antecedent basis in parent claim 13. Only "at least one senor apparatus" is recited. Consistent nomenclature should be used through any given claim set.
Claim 14 also recites individual sensors in the same manner as in claim 1. The examiner holds claim 14 to be indefinite for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1 regarding the individual sensors, respectfully not repeated again here.
Claim 15 is a method version of claim 5, and is held as indefinite as similarly described for claim 5 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 13, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0090555 (Boone).
Independent claim 1. Boone discloses a drilling rate of penetration or distance moved measurement system ("ROP sensor 430k" - fig 4A; "The actual ROP data is received from the ROP sensor 430k" - ¶ 97. "The draw-works 694 includes an ROP sensor 694a that is configured for detecting an ROP value or range, and may be substantially similar to the ROP sensor 130a shown in FIG. 1" - ¶ 157. "The drum controller 804b is configured to receive the ROP set point from the ROP set point input 802l, as well as the current ROP from the ROP calculator 804l" - ¶ 343. "The ROP calculator 804l is configured to receive the block position 806a from the block position 808a and then utilize this data to calculate the current ROP" - ¶ 356) for a drilling operation (title, abstract), the system including
at least one sensor apparatus ("The plurality of sensors 430 of the apparatus 400a [fig 4A] may also include a hook load sensor 430g, a mud pump pressure sensor 430h, a bit depth sensor 430i, a casing pressure sensor 430j and an ROP sensor 430k. Each of the plurality of sensors 430 may be located at the surface of the wellbore, downhole (e.g., MWD), or elsewhere" - ¶ 89; "The drawworks controller 420b may also or alternatively compare actual ROP data with ROP input data. The actual ROP data is received from the ROP sensor 430k, and the ROP input data is received from the corresponding user input 410k. The ROP input data received from the user input 410k may be a single value indicative of the desired ROP" - ¶ 97; "The draw-works 694 includes an ROP sensor 694a that is configured for detecting an ROP value or range, and may be substantially similar to the ROP sensor 130a ["drawworks 130"] shown in FIG. 1" - ¶ 157; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296. Assemblies / tools with sensors on them are discussed throughout) mounted on a drill rig (fig 1 and as previously cited above) including at least one sensor ("ROP sensor 130a" - ¶ 157; "ROP sensor 430k" and as previously cited above) to provide an indication of rate and/or distance a drill bit or other tool advances into a borehole (They are "rate of penetration" sensors and therefore naturally provide "an indication of rate and/or distance a drill bit advances into a borehole" and as previously cited above), and at least one processor ("controller 698" - fig 6B; ¶s 153-154 & 340; "processors 804" - fig 8A & ¶ 360. Conventional generic computer implementation: ¶ 360), wherein the at least one sensor is utilised to,
measure and provide to the processor a sensed indication of an incremental distance travelled relative to a fixed point ("The ROP data detected via the ROP sensor 694a may be sent via electronic signal to the controller 698 via wired or wireless transmission" - ¶ 157; "The drawworks controller 420b may also or alternatively compare actual ROP data with ROP input data. The actual ROP data is received from the ROP sensor 430k, and the ROP input data is received from the corresponding user input 410k. The ROP input data received from the user input 410k may be a single value indicative of the desired ROP" - ¶ 97; "The ROP calculator 804l is configured to receive the block position 806a from the block position 808a and then utilize this data to calculate the current ROP" - ¶ 356; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296), and the processor calculates from the sensed indication of incremental distance (ibid as cited above; "ROP calculator 804l" - fig 8A) and an elapsed time for the incremental distance travelled (The "rate of change" of something, in this case depth / position, inherently requires a time variable as a matter of math and units. This is further supported by the conventional usage of "rate of penetration", as supported by the SLB Glossary entry therefore. Applicant also discusses this in as-filed ¶ 8 of the present case) a measure of the rate of penetration (ibid as cited above; "ROP calculator 804l" - fig 8A), wherein, the at least one sensor is selected from the group comprising:
an accelerometer, a multi-axis accelerometer, an electromagnetic wave sensor ("an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder" - ¶ 296), a LIDAR sensor, a MEMS mirror, a radar sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an optical sensor ("optical sensor… optical encoder" - ibid), a camera ("optical sensor" - ibid), a resistance sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, a microwave sensor, an infrared sensor and a gyroscopic sensor.
2. The system of claim 1, including a timer providing a measure of the elapsed time during which the drill bit or other tool advances into the borehole (Computer processors foundationally utilize timers, and are inherently necessary for computing ROP, as supported by the SLB Glossary entry therefore. See also Applicant's own discussion in present ¶ 9. At the high level of generality currently recited, the examiner respectfully asserts that "a timer" is inherently necessary to measure "rate of penetration" which has time as a unit, and which is taught as being calculated by Boone as cited above).
3. The system of claim 1, the at least one sensor including an acceleration sensor and/or position sensor in relation to movement of a drill mast ("The draw-works 694 includes an ROP sensor 694a that is configured for detecting an ROP value or range, and may be substantially similar to the ROP sensor 130a ["drawworks 130"] shown in FIG. 1" - ¶ 157; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296; "The ROP calculator 804l is configured to receive the block position 806a from the block position 808a and then utilize this data to calculate the current ROP" - ¶ 356. All of these are "a position sensor in relation to movement of the drill mast at the level of generality currently claimed), wherein the movement of the drill mast is measured to indicate the incremental distance travelled (ibid as discussed above).
6. The system of claim 1, including at least one threshold detector ("the second logic device creates a modified drilling path based upon whether the amount of deviation from the planned path exceeds a threshold" - ¶ 17. "The stick-slip behavior of the BHA causes real-time variations of TOB, or .DELTA.T. This .DELTA.T may be utilized to support a Stick Slip Alarm (SSA) according to one or more aspects of the present disclosure. For example, a .DELTA.T or SSA parameter may be displayed visually with a "Stop Light" indicator, where a green light may indicate an acceptable operating condition (e.g., SSA parameter of 0-15), an amber light may indicate that stick-slip behavior is imminent (e.g., SSA parameter of 16-25), and a red light may indicate that stick-slip behavior is likely occurring (e.g., SSA parameter above 25). However, these example thresholds may be adjustable during operation" - ¶ 197. "If the actual toolface orientation drifts off the desired orientation further than a preset (user adjustable) limit for a period longer than a preset (user adjustable) duration, then the apparatus may signal an audio and/or visual alarm." - ¶ 468), wherein the threshold detector provides an alert when optimisation parameters have dropped below a preferred state ("an audible alarm may be triggered if the SSA parameter exceeds a predetermined value" - ¶ 197. "If the actual toolface orientation drifts off the desired orientation further than a preset (user adjustable) limit for a period longer than a preset (user adjustable) duration, then the apparatus may signal an audio and/or visual alarm." - ¶ 468).
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the at least one sensor apparatus is configured to interface with other sensors or sensor arrangements/apparatus (Each of figs 3, 4A, and 8A show "interfacing" with "opter sensors or sensor arrangements/apparatus" of the overall system) that detect or measure acceleration, inertia, gyroscopic values, force, torque, pressure, vibration, temperature, and (mud) flow, or a combination of any two or more thereof (these do not appear to be specifically required by the claim, only a "configuration" of the "sensor apparatus" to interface with other sensors. That said, "gyro sensors" are taught: ¶ 49; At least "force, torque, temperature" are also taught: ¶ 42).
8. The system of claim 1, including display means ("display 335" - fig 3; "display 1014" - fig 11) and recording means (conventional computer memory; "storage device 1106" - fig 11), or communication means to communicate measurements for remote display and recordal ("one or more interfaces which may be local at the well/rig site or located at another, remote location with a network link to the system" - ¶ 52. "a communications link to the system, network, local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), Internet, satellite-link, and/or radio, among other means" - ¶ 62).
9. The system of claim 1, including any one or more of:
a transmitter/sender mounted on a moving part of a drill rig ("The draw-works 694 includes an ROP sensor 694a that is configured for detecting an ROP value or range, and may be substantially similar to the ROP sensor 130a ["drawworks 130"] shown in FIG. 1" - ¶ 157; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296. These are "transmitters/senders": "The ROP data detected via the ROP sensor 694a may be sent via electronic signal to the controller 698 via wired or wireless transmission" - ¶ 157) to transmit a signal (ibid) to a detector/receiver on a fixed part of the drill rig (the network infrastructure which receives this data and gives it the controller: ¶s 52, 62, 157, 413, 420), and the receiver/detector transmits time of flight/distance data (ibid as cited above) to a remote user interface/computer ("monitoring from stations on the rig site as well as one or more remote locations with a communications link to the system" - ¶ 62; "When drillers are not at the drilling rig, i.e., the driller(s) are remotely located from the rig, the alerts module may be associated with the toolface calculation engine 404 in a manner that when the toolface calculation engine 404 detects deviation of the bit from the planned drilling path, the alerts module signals the driller" - ¶ 134; "The well monitoring station may also be configured to transmit selected information from the alerts module to a specific remote user terminal of a plurality of remote user terminals" - ¶ 136);
a transmitter/sender on an electronic sub to transmit/send a signal to a reflector on a fixed part of the drill rig and receives the reflected signal back, then the signal/data is sent wirelessly to the user interface/computer (claim only requires one of the clauses per the preamble;
a first sender/transmitter to send a signal to a first detector/receiver at a fixed position of the drill rig, and a second sender/transmitter at the a fixed position of the rig sends a signal to a second detector/receiver on the mast, and distance measurement can be processed for each receiver, and measured/processed data can be transmitted by each apparatus to a remote user interface/computer; and
a sender/transmitter sending a signal from a fixed position of the drill rig to a reflector on the mast of the drill rig, then the sensor receives the reflected signal, processes data and sends to the remote user interface/computer.
Independent claim 13. Boone discloses a method of controlling drilling performance of a drilling system (title, abstract) using at least one sensor apparatus ("The plurality of sensors 430 of the apparatus 400a [fig 4A] may also include a hook load sensor 430g, a mud pump pressure sensor 430h, a bit depth sensor 430i, a casing pressure sensor 430j and an ROP sensor 430k. Each of the plurality of sensors 430 may be located at the surface of the wellbore, downhole (e.g., MWD), or elsewhere" - ¶ 89; "The drawworks controller 420b may also or alternatively compare actual ROP data with ROP input data. The actual ROP data is received from the ROP sensor 430k, and the ROP input data is received from the corresponding user input 410k. The ROP input data received from the user input 410k may be a single value indicative of the desired ROP" - ¶ 97; "The draw-works 694 includes an ROP sensor 694a that is configured for detecting an ROP value or range, and may be substantially similar to the ROP sensor 130a ["drawworks 130"] shown in FIG. 1" - ¶ 157; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296. Assemblies / tools with sensors on them are discussed throughout) mounted on the drilling system (fig 1 and as cited above), the method including
determining rate of penetration (ROP) of a drill bit during drilling ("ROP sensor 130a" - ¶ 157; "ROP sensor 430k"; "The ROP calculator 804l is configured to receive the block position 806a from the block position 808a and then utilize this data to calculate the current ROP" - ¶ 356 and as previously cited above), determined based on a sensor output (as cited for the "sensor apparatus" above) providing a sensed indication of an incremental distance travelled relative to a fixed point ("The ROP data detected via the ROP sensor 694a may be sent via electronic signal to the controller 698 via wired or wireless transmission" - ¶ 157; "The drawworks controller 420b may also or alternatively compare actual ROP data with ROP input data. The actual ROP data is received from the ROP sensor 430k, and the ROP input data is received from the corresponding user input 410k. The ROP input data received from the user input 410k may be a single value indicative of the desired ROP" - ¶ 97; "The ROP calculator 804l is configured to receive the block position 806a from the block position 808a and then utilize this data to calculate the current ROP" - ¶ 356; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296) during an elapsed time (The "rate of change" of something, in this case depth / position, inherently requires a time variable as a matter of math and units as discussed above) based on a sample frequency of the sensor (The sample frequency of the sensor inherently determines how often it can measure a variable. The examiner views this to be inherent at the level of generality currently claimed. As support for this, the examiner notes that Boone teaches many of the same sensors as presently claimed as discussed for claim 1 above. In other words, the claim expressly defines this as a feature of the sensor, and the prior art teaches the same sensors as claimed), and calculating from the sensed indication of incremental distance and the elapsed time for the incremental distance travelled a measure of the rate of penetration (ibid as cited above; "ROP calculator 804l" - fig 8A), and controlling at least one of:
weight on bit (WOB) ("referring to FIGS. 1 and 6A, collectively, execution of step 608 may include increasing or decreasing WOB, RPM, and/or TOR by transmitting a control signal from the controller 190 to the top drive 140 and/or the draw works 130 to change RPM, TOR, and/or WOB" - ¶ 151; "the controller 325 may execute the method 202 shown in FIG. 2B to provide one or more signals to the drive system 315 and/or the drawworks 320 to increase or decrease WOB and/or quill position" - ¶ 73), flow of drilling fluid (), torque applied to the drill bit (¶ 151 as cited above; "Changes in the actual WOB can cause changes in the actual bit torque" - ¶ 98) and revolutions per minute (RPM) of the drill bit (¶ 151 as cited above) utilising the determined ROP (All of the methods "utilize the determined ROP" as this determination is expressly a factor in the method, as cited above, and shown in figs 1-6A; "referring to FIGS. 1 and 6A, collectively, execution of step 608 may include increasing or decreasing WOB, RPM, and/or TOR by transmitting a control signal from the controller 190 to the top drive 140 and/or the draw works 130 to change RPM, TOR, and/or WOB" - ¶ 151. See also the inputs of "sensors 430" into the control system in fig 4B), wherein any one or more of ROP, and change in ROP are output in real or near real time ("Any of the control systems disclosed herein, including FIGS. 1, 3, 4A-C, 6B, 8A, and 8B may be used to execute the methods of FIGS. 9A and 9B. The real-time data obtained in these methods may be configured as inputs in FIG. 4A to optimize drilling operations…" - ¶ 388; "real time projection to bit depth" - ¶ 109, which is of course based off ROP measurements; "periodic or real-time survey results to predict bit location" - ¶ 110; "the process occurs continuously in real-time" - ¶ 124; "received data may not be truly real time in every embodiment of the invention, as the alerts depend upon data that has been transmitted from a drilling site to the central data hub over a radio or satellite communications medium (which inherently takes some time to accomplish" - ¶ 137).
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the at least one sensor is selected from the group comprising: an accelerometer, a multi-axis accelerometer, an electromagnetic wave sensor ("an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder" - ¶ 296), a LIDAR sensor, a MEMS mirror, a radar sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an optical sensor ("optical sensor… optical encoder" - ibid), a camera ("optical sensor… optical encoder" - ibid), a resistance sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, a microwave sensor, an infrared sensor and a gyroscopic sensor.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0090555 (Boone) in view of US 3,853,004 (Westlake).
4. In light of the 112(b) rejection of claim 4 above, the limitations have been interpreted as best able. Boone discloses all the limitations of the parent claim, and further discloses the at least one sensor is configured to measure a parameter value indicative of relative distance between a component on a mast ("The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296) or drill string ("Each of the plurality of sensors 430 may be located at the surface of the wellbore, downhole (e.g., MWD), or elsewhere" - ¶ 89) of the drill rig which moves vertically (fig 1) with progression of a drill bit or other downhole tool during drilling ("One end of the drilling line 125 extends from the lifting gear to drawworks 130, which is configured to reel out and reel in the drilling line 125 to cause the traveling block 120 to be lowered and raised relative to the rig floor 110. The other end of the drilling line 125, known as a dead line anchor, is anchored to a fixed position, possibly near the drawworks 130 or elsewhere on the rig." - ¶ 38) and a fixed position on the drill rig ("…relative or absolute vertical position of the block" - ¶ 296. "Absolute vertical position" is relative to the earth. "Relative position" is therefore clearly and reasonably relative to the features of the rig - fig 1 - as the examiner respectfully asserts PHOSITA would readily appreciate. "…to cause the traveling block 120 to be lowered and raised relative to the rig floor 110. The other end of the drilling line 125, known as a dead line anchor, is anchored to a fixed position, possibly near the drawworks 130 or elsewhere on the rig." - ¶ 38); and
the least one processor ("controller 698" - fig 6B; ¶s 153-154 & 340; "processors 804" - fig 8A & ¶ 360. Conventional generic computer implementation: ¶ 360) is in data communication with the sensor to receive the measured parameter values and calculate based on the received parameter values and elapsed time an incremental distance the drill bit or other downhole tool advances into a borehole during the elapsed time ("The ROP data detected via the ROP sensor 694a may be sent via electronic signal to the controller 698 via wired or wireless transmission" - ¶ 157; "The drawworks controller 420b may also or alternatively compare actual ROP data with ROP input data. The actual ROP data is received from the ROP sensor 430k, and the ROP input data is received from the corresponding user input 410k. The ROP input data received from the user input 410k may be a single value indicative of the desired ROP" - ¶ 97; "The ROP calculator 804l is configured to receive the block position 806a from the block position 808a and then utilize this data to calculate the current ROP" - ¶ 356; "The block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block. The block position sensor 808a may be coupled to or integral with the block, the crown, the drawworks, and/or another component of the apparatus 800 or rig" - ¶ 296), and a measure of the rate of penetration (ROP) of the drill bit or other downhole tool (ibid), wherein at least one of ROP, and change in ROP (ibid) is output in real or near real time ("Any of the control systems disclosed herein, including FIGS. 1, 3, 4A-C, 6B, 8A, and 8B may be used to execute the methods of FIGS. 9A and 9B. The real-time data obtained in these methods may be configured as inputs in FIG. 4A to optimize drilling operations…" - ¶ 388; "real time projection to bit depth" - ¶ 109, which is of course based off ROP measurements; "periodic or real-time survey results to predict bit location" - ¶ 110; "the process occurs continuously in real-time" - ¶ 124; "received data may not be truly real time in every embodiment of the invention, as the alerts depend upon data that has been transmitted from a drilling site to the central data hub over a radio or satellite communications medium (which inherently takes some time to accomplish" - ¶ 137).
Regarding the present recitations of "…to periodically measure…" and "wherein an elapsed time between the periodic measurements is based on a sample frequency of the sensor…", the examiner notes the 112(b) rejections above, as well as the citation to ¶ 137 direction above. A certain amount of "not technically completely 'real time'" of measurements appears to be inherent at some level, at least at the level of generality currently recited. In other words, there would appear to be an inherent sample rate to any generic sensor - how fact / often it can collect and transmit data. That said, Boone does not discuss this is sufficient detail relative to "periodically measuring" to say that Boone anticipates the claim.
However Westlake teaches an ROP sensor (abstract) that measures displacement of the traveling block over an elapsed time (title; col 1:36-45. "extremely small increments (EG: tenths of an inch) of depth of penetration can be determined over fixed time intervals" - col 3:8-11) based on a sample rate for the sensor (col 8:5-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the sensor taught by Westlake as the ROP sensor taught by Boone. First, Boone discloses the sensor broadly, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere for a more detailed description, although Boone does teach "the block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block" (¶ 296). Westlake teaches the details of just such an encoder (col 8:5-16).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0090555 (Boone) in view of US 2019/0169978 (Saad).
10. Boone discloses all the limitations of the parent claim but does not expressly disclose those of the present. However Saad discloses a drilling rate of penetration or distance moved measurement system for a drilling operation (title, abstract) use a sensor ("rangefinders 24 and 26, shown schematically attached to the derrick 12 at different heights and a calculation component 25... The rangefinders 24, 26 are at different vertical locations. At various times during the drilling operation the rangefinders 24, 26 identify a beginning and ending of each pipe segment 20 and calculate a distance between the beginning and ending of each pipe segment 20. The pipe segments 20 are shown having a chamfered surface 28 at each top and bottom. The rangefinders 24, 26 are configured to identify the top and bottom of the pipe segments using such a feature or another identifiable feature on the pipe segments 20. The length of each pipe segment 20 is added to a running total length number. The ROP is calculated as this length number over a predetermined time period. The rangefinders 24, 26 are configured to communicate with the calculation component 25 and to operate automatically to eliminate the chance for human error to affect the calculation of ROP." - ¶ 17) comprising a LIDAR sensor ("the rangefinders use LIDAR, which stands for Light Detection and Ranging, which is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure ranges (variable distances)" - ¶ 19), the LIDAR sensor configured to identify (i) a reference/datum point (the known fixed locations of the rangefinders; "The rangefinders 24, 26, can measure the distances a, b, c, e, and f. The distance b between rangefinders can be calculated or it is a known, fixed parameter because the rangefinders are in a fixed position on the derrick." - ¶ 22; also ¶ 3 & claim 13) and (ii) movement relative to that reference/datum point ("configured to observe the drill string as the drill string is being constructed and lowered into the wellbore" - ¶ 3; " one of the identifiers is attached to the drill string and the other identifier is fixed at a reference point" - claim 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the LIDAR sensors taught by Saad in the ROP system taught by Boone. First, Boone discloses the sensor broadly, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere for a more detailed description, although Boone does teach "the block position sensor 808a may be or include an optical sensor, a radio-frequency sensor, an optical or other encoder, or another type of sensor configured to sense the relative or absolute vertical position of the block" (¶ 296). Saad teaches an art recognized variation (as cited above; also claim 14) and the LIDAR system is "an optical sensor" as already taught by Boone.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0090555 (Boone) in view of US 2012/0056751 (Field).
12. Boone discloses all the limitations of the parent claim but does not expressly disclose those of the present. However Field teaches a drilling system with an integrated sensor apparatus (title) including an energy harvester to generate sufficient energy to power the sensor apparatus or system or components thereof ("embodiments of the present disclosure relate to harvesting power from the existing components of the drilling rig to eliminate the need to replace discharged batteries and/or replace the need for a battery powered tachometer transmitter. For example, the driving mechanism in the rotary head may be used to generate power for powering the tachometer transmitter. More specifically, a driving mechanism such as a hydraulic motor, or electrical motor on the rotary head may be used to power a generator" - ¶ 38; " power may be harvested using solar energy or other power sources that do not necessarily stem from the components of the drilling rig" - ¶ 40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the energy harvesting taught by Field on the system taught by Boone. First, this can reduce the load on the rig power systems and reduce the need for batteries (¶ 38). And, in the case of solar energy, can utilize a readily available power source in a conventional and well understood manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights