DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 10/14/2025. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional US Patent Application 63/741,315 filed on 01/02/2025, has been received and acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays.” Examiner believes the foregoing limitation, which appears to be a combination of two distinct limitations, should be separated into two distinct limitations similar to: “determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge; applying the corresponding one or more limiter overlays.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays.” Examiner believes the foregoing limitation, which appears to be a combination of two distinct limitations, should be separated into two distinct limitations similar to: “determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge; applying the corresponding one or more limiter overlays.”
Examiner notes the above discussed limitation is also subject to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided below. Amending the claims to resolve the objection alone will not necessarily resolve the rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the claim element “one or more limiter overlays” which is not a term which carries a commonly understood meaning within the art. While para. [0019] and [0020] of the instant specification generally discuss how the limiter overlays may be developed and/or used, the specification does not appear to set forth a specific definition to establish clear metes and bounds for the term “limiter overlay.” The lack of clear definition with respect to the term “limiter overlay” renders the term indefinite and therefore renders claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear what the term, and therefore the claim, are intended to encompass. As best understood from the specification, the term “limiter overlay” generally relates to operational adjustments made to a drilling operation when one of more metrics of the drilling operation are outside of a preferred range (e.g., calculated confidence intervals). Accordingly, for the purposes of examination, the term “limiter overlay” is understood to be an operational adjustment made to a drilling operation when one or more drilling parameters are identified as being outside of a preferred range (e.g., based on the calculated confidence intervals).
In view of the foregoing interpretation, the following limitations overlap in scope and in combination are indefinite because it is unclear what is being claimed:
“applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays”; and
“identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays”
As provided above the “limiter overlays” are understood to be adjustments made to the drilling operation in response to identifying/determining that one or more drilling parameters are outside of the preferred range. Accordingly, identifying an action to be taken according to the limiter overlay (e.g., which itself is interpreted as an action) overlaps so extensively with applying the limiter overlay that the two limitations are almost indistinguishable. For the purposes of examination, identifying the action corresponding to the one or more limiter overlays is understood to implicitly occur when applying the one or more limiter overlays.
Claims 2—13 depend from claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the action is one or more adjustments to the drilling parameters or one or more rig actions.” Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, adjusting drilling parameters and performing rig actions are not distinct from each other. For example, adjusting drilling parameters could easily be classified as performing a rig operation. Furthermore, performing operations like tripping a bit inherently requires an adjustment to the drilling operations. The specification does not provide express definitions for the terms “drilling parameters” and “rig actions” such that the terms are distinguished in any meaningful manner. Accordingly the limitations of claim 5 are indefinite because the claim recites two groups of operations as distinct entities which are not inherently distinct.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the adverse condition includes one or more of bit wear, stick slip, whirl, telemetry, geosteering, high frequency torsional oscillation, hole cleaning, washout, pack off, managed temperature drilling, stringer, or steering limitations.” As phrased, the claim implies that the recited claim elements constitute adverse conditions; however, elements such as telemetry, geosteering, hole cleaning, and managed temperature drilling are not inherently adverse conditions which renders the claim limitation unclear. Amending the claim to recite “wherein the adverse conditions are related to one of more of…” or “wherein the adverse conditions are associated with one or more of…” would resolve the rejection.
Claim 14 recites the claim element “one or more limiter overlays” which is not a term which carries a commonly understood meaning within the art. While para. [0019] and [0020] of the instant specification generally discuss how the limiter overlays may be developed and/or used, the specification does not appear to set forth a specific definition to establish clear metes and bounds for the term “limiter overlay.” The lack of clear definition with respect to the term “limiter overlay” renders the term indefinite and therefore renders claim 14 indefinite because it is unclear what the term, and therefore the claim, are intended to encompass. As best understood from the specification, the term “limiter overlay” generally relates to operational adjustments made to a drilling operation when one of more metrics of the drilling operation are outside of a preferred range (e.g., calculated confidence intervals). Accordingly, for the purposes of examination, the term “limiter overlay” is understood to be an operational adjustment made to a drilling operation when one or more drilling parameters are identified as being outside of a preferred range (e.g., based on the calculated confidence intervals).
In view of the foregoing interpretation, the following limitations overlap in scope and in combination are indefinite because it is unclear what is being claimed given such similar limitations are separately recited:
“applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays”; and
“identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays”
As provided above the “limiter overlays” are understood to be adjustments made to the drilling operation in response to identifying/determining that one or more drilling parameters are outside of the preferred range. Accordingly, identifying an action to be taken according to the limiter overlay (e.g., which itself is interpreted as an action) overlaps so extensively with applying the limiter overlay that the two limitations are almost indistinguishable. For the purposes of examination, identifying the action corresponding to the one or more limiter overlays is understood to implicitly occur when applying the one or more limiter overlays.
Claims 15—18 depend from claim 14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 14 recites the claim element “one or more limiter overlays” which is not a term which carries a commonly understood meaning within the art. While para. [0019] and [0020] of the instant specification generally discuss how the limiter overlays may be developed and/or used, the specification does not appear to set forth a specific definition to establish clear metes and bounds for the term “limiter overlay.” The lack of clear definition with respect to the term “limiter overlay” renders the term indefinite and therefore renders claim 14 indefinite because it is unclear what the term, and therefore the claim, are intended to encompass. As best understood from the specification, the term “limiter overlay” generally relates to operational adjustments made to a drilling operation when one of more metrics of the drilling operation are outside of a preferred range (e.g., calculated confidence intervals). Accordingly, for the purposes of examination, the term “limiter overlay” is understood to be an operational adjustment made to a drilling operation when one or more drilling parameters are identified as being outside of a preferred range (e.g., based on the calculated confidence intervals).
In view of the foregoing interpretation, the following limitations overlap in scope and in combination are indefinite because it is unclear what is being claimed given such similar limitations are separately recited:
“applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays”; and
“identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays”
As provided above the “limiter overlays” are understood to be adjustments made to the drilling operation in response to identifying/determining that one or more drilling parameters are outside of the preferred range. Accordingly, identifying an action to be taken according to the limiter overlay (e.g., which itself is interpreted as an action) overlaps so extensively with applying the limiter overlay that the two limitations are almost indistinguishable. For the purposes of examination, identifying the action corresponding to the one or more limiter overlays is understood to implicitly occur when applying the one or more limiter overlays.
Claims 15—18 depend from claim 14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 14, and 19 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), 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
Claim 1 recites the following abstract limitations (e.g., abstract ideas and/or judicial exceptions):
“deriving statistical information from data of previous wells…” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“ascertaining drilling parameters for a current well using a bit rock model…” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“detecting a drilling challenge during the drilling of the current well, wherein drilling challenges occur when one of the drilling parameters is outside of a corresponding one of the confidence intervals” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept);
“applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponding to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one or the one or more limiter overlays” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 14 recites the following abstract limitations (e.g., abstract ideas and/or judicial exceptions):
“using statistical information from previous well data and drilling parameters ascertained from a bit rock model…” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“detecting a drilling challenge during the drilling of the current well, wherein drilling challenges occur when one of the drilling parameters is outside of a corresponding one of the confidence intervals” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept);
“applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponding to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one or the one or more limiter overlays” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Claim 19 recites the following abstract limitations (e.g., abstract ideas and/or judicial exceptions):
“ascertaining drilling parameters for a current well using a bit rock model…” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept);
“detecting a drilling challenge during the drilling of the current well, wherein drilling challenges occur when one of the drilling parameters is outside of a corresponding one of the confidence intervals” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept); and
“determining the limiter overlay does not correspond to the drilling challenge” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations identified above constitute abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, or a combination thereof. For example, as drafted, the actions including “deriving statistical information from data”; “ascertaining drilling parameters… using a bit rock model”; “detecting a drilling challenge…”; “determining…”; and “identifying [an action to take]” are directed to steps which are performable by a human mind with or without the benefit of pen and paper. Additionally, the actions including performing derivations, ascertaining information from a model, making determinations, detecting differences between an operation and an operational limit may further benefit from the utilization of a mathematical concept. More specifically, nothing in the foregoing claims 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 does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claims recite one or more abstract ideas.
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.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
“continuing the drilling of the current well according to the action” (e.g., a mere directive to apply the identified abstract ideas where the application is recited at a high level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
Claim 14 recites the additional element of:
“continuing the drilling of the current well according to the action” (e.g., a mere directive to apply the identified abstract ideas where the application is recited at a high level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
Claim 19 recites the additional element of:
“adjusting one or more of the drilling parameters according to at least one limiter overlay when the at least one limiter overlay corresponds to the drilling challenge” (e.g., a mere directive to apply the identified abstract ideas where the application is both conditional and recited at a high level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”); and
“maintaining the drilling parameters…” (e.g., equivalent to reciting “apply it”; moreover, maintaining an operation does not meet the threshold for a practical application).
The above identified limitations of claims 1, 14, and 19 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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).
As identified above, claims 1 and 14 recite the additional element of “continuing the drilling of the current well according to the action” which is equivalent to mere directive to generically apply the above identified judicial exceptions. To start, the claim does not require that any specific action is actually taken. For example, the action taken could include maintaining the drilling operation in the same operational form that it was in prior to performing the identified judicial exception. In accordance with the MPEP, an application which integrates a judicial exception into a practical application cannot include a limitation directed to maintaining the operation. Moreover, the MPEP states:
“[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, in order for the application limitation to adequately recite a practical application in view of the foregoing citation, the limitation must include restriction around how the result is accomplished and/or description for the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Limitations equivalent to a directive to take the output of the model and apply it to a drilling operation cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 do not recite any additional elements which provide for adequate integration of the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
As identified above, claim 19 recites the additional element of “adjusting one or more of the drilling parameters according to at least one limiter overlay when the at least one limiter overlay corresponds to the drilling challenge and maintaining the drilling parameters when determining the limiter overlay does not correspond to the drilling challenge” which is equivalent to mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions of claim 19. As with claims 1 and 14, the claim does not require that any specific action is actually taken. For example, the action taken could include maintaining the drilling operation in the same operational form that it was in prior to performing the identified judicial exception. In accordance with the MPEP, an application which integrates a judicial exception into a practical application cannot include a limitation directed to maintaining the operation. Furthermore, even if the limitation were amended to remove the option of maintaining the operation, the limitation directed to adjusting the drilling parameters does not itself provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because there is no limit on how the adjusting step is applied with respect to the limiter overlay where the limiter overlay is recited very broadly.
As noted above, the MPEP states: “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly claim 19 does not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application because the limitations amount to mere directive to apply the exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 15 recite the limitation “continuing drilling the current well using the drilling parameters when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays does not correspond to the drilling challenge.” As noted above with respect to claims 1 and 14, a limitation directed to maintaining an operation without reciting any specific modification which is identified as a result of the abstract idea, does not adequately integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Accordingly claims 2 and 15 do not provide for a practical application of the identified abstract ideas (e.g., judicial exceptions).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “detecting the drilling challenge is performed automatically” which merely functions to further limit the identified abstract idea of “detecting” without providing for a practical application of the abstract idea. Performing an abstract idea automatically is itself abstract where the limitation does not recite any additional elements which may perform the abstract idea. Notably, amending the claim to recite generic computer components which are capable of performing the abstract idea automatically would move the limitation out of the abstract idea bucket and into the additional element bucket. However, even if such an amendment were made, merely reciting generic computer components which are capable of performing an abstract idea faster and/or automatically would amount to mere directive to apply the identified abstract ideas (e.g., “apply it”). Accordingly claim 3 does not provide for additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Claim 4 recite limitations directed to performing the identified abstract idea (e.g., “applying… limiter overlays”) automatically and does not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions for the same reasons as provided with respect to claim 3. Accordingly claim 4 does not provide for additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the action is one or more adjustments to the drilling parameters or one or more rig actions” which constitutes and additional element. However, the limitation is recited at such a high level of generality that it does not function to integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. For example, the limitations of claim 5 to not rectify the deficiencies of the recited additional elements of claim 1 for the same reasons as set forth with respect to MPEP 2106.05(f) as provided above. Accordingly the limitations of claim 5 are directed to mere instruction to apply the exception and do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the corresponding one of the limiter overlays is a challenge overlay that corresponds to an adverse condition and the drilling parameters associated therewith,” which further defines the abstract idea of claim 1 with limitations that are themselves abstract. For example, providing further definition around the thresholds used in a model merely constitutes further definition of the model itself. Accordingly the limitations of claim 6 do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the adverse condition includes one or more of bit wear, stick slip, whirl, telemetry, geosteering, high frequency torsional oscillation, hole cleaning, washout, pack off, managed temperature drilling, stringer, or steering limitations,” which further defines the abstract ideas of claims 6 and 1. For the same reasons as provided with respect to claim 6, providing further definition around the thresholds used in a model merely constitutes further definition of the model itself. Accordingly the limitations of claim 7 do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claims 1 and 6 into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the action includes changing one or more of the drilling parameters,” which constitutes an additional element directed to an application. However, the application is recited at such a broad level of generality that it is equivalent to mere instructions to apply the identified exceptions. For example, the MPEP states: “[t]he recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly claim 8 does not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application because the limitations amount to mere directive to apply the exception.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the drilling parameters include weight on bit (WOB), revolutions per minute (RPM), or rate of flow,” which is directed to an additional element. However, the limitation functions to limit the data used in the abstract idea according to source and/or content which does not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitation is directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly the limitations of claim 9 do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exception because the limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the action is a wellbore action,” which constitutes an additional element directed to an application. However, the application is recited at such a broad level of generality that it is equivalent to mere instructions to apply the identified exceptions. Moreover, claim 10 does not provide for a practical application for substantially similar reasons as those provided above with respect to claim 8. Accordingly claim 10 does not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application because the limitations amount to mere directive to apply the exception.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “wherein the wellbore action includes cleaning the hole of the current well or replacing a drill bit being used for the drilling,” which constitutes an additional element; however, it does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. For example, circulating a drilling fluid for hole cleaning purposes while drilling is well-known in the art as supported by the following references:
Issued US Patent Application to Martin et al. (US 5219028 A) states “[a] typical drilling apparatus will include a tubular drill string having a drill bit positioned on the end thereof. Throughout the drilling process, a circulating fluid (e.g., a drilling mud) is typically pumped down the drill string and through the drill bit. After flowing through the drill bit, the circulating fluid flows up the well via an annulus defined between the wall of the well bore and the outer surface of the drill string. Among other things, this flow of circulating fluid assists the drilling process and carries drill cuttings out of the well.” (Martin, Col 1, Lines 17—26);
Issued US Patent Application to Elkins et al. (US 6374925 B1) states “[d]rilling subterranean wells typically requires circulating a drilling fluid (‘mud’) through a drilling fluid circulation system (‘system’).” (Elkins, Col 1, Lines 14—16);
Issued US Patent Application to Meinen et al. (US 7556106 B1) states “[d]uring the drilling of a well in the quest for hydrocarbons using the rotary method of drilling, it is necessary to pump or circulate a drilling fluid, known in the art as "drilling mud" downwardly through the drill pipe to which the drill bit is attached and outwardly through the drill bit into the annulus formed by the drill pipe and the wall of the well bore for return upwardly through the annulus to the surface.” (Meinen, Col. 1, Lines 10—17);
Issued US Patent Application to Moyes (US 6719071 B1) states “[w]hen drilling boreholes for hydrocarbon extraction, it is common practice to circulate drilling fluid or ‘mud’ downhole: drilling mud is pumped from surface down a tubular drillstring to the drill bit, where the mud leaves the drillstring through jetting ports and returns to surface via the annulus between the drillstring and the bore wall. The mud lubricates and cools the drill bit, supports the walls of the unlined bore, and carries dislodged rock particles or drill cuttings away from the drill bit and to the surface.”(Moyes, Col. 1, Lines 28—37); and
Published US Patent Application to Hollier et al. (US 20120216416 A1) which states “[a]s is well known in the field of rotary drilling, the earth is brought to the surface in the form of small "drill cuttings" or "cuttings," carried in the fluid circulating system of the rig, namely in the stream of drilling fluid, typically a liquid "drilling mud." The combined drilling mud/drill cuttings stream is processed (by shakers and other equipment well known in the relevant art) so as to remove the drill cuttings and route the liquid fraction of the drilling mud (which contains certain desirable entrained solids) for circulation back downhole.” (Hollier, para. [0002]) and “[a] similar situation may exist in other well servicing work, such as workovers, recompletions, or even plugging and abandonment. In all of these operations, it is necessary to circulate and condition fluids to remove solids, whether the solids are drill cuttings or are solids moved from a cased wellbore; and whether the fluids in the fluid circulating system of the rig are drilling mud or clear fluids used in completions, workovers and the like. The terms "drill cuttings," "cuttings," "fluids," and "drilling fluids" are used in their broadest sense herein to encompass all of these settings.” (Hollier, para. [0003]).
Accordingly, at least one of the listed operations constitutes well-understood, routine, or conventional activity such that the limitation cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the additional elements constitute insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “providing a real-time visualization of the drilling of the current well with respect to the statistical information from the previous well data,” which is directed to the abstract idea of presenting data. For example, the MPEP states “[b]y way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described ‘the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’’ 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.’ 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly claim 12 does not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application because the limitations of claim 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the confidence intervals are provided per a unit of depth, per stand, or per multiple stands,” which further defines the identified abstract idea of claim 1 in a manner which is in itself abstract. For example, providing further definition around mathematical thresholds or ranges used in a model merely constitutes further definition of the model itself. Accordingly the limitations of claim 13 do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the operating instructions correspond to machine learning algorithms, rules based algorithms, or algorithms of a numerical computation engine,” which is directed to an abstract idea further directed to either a mental process, a mathematical concept, or a combination thereof. The recitation of generic algorithms used in performing an abstract idea constitutes limitations directed to an abstract idea and cannot provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 14. Accordingly the limitations of claim 16 do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 14 into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites an additional element of “a screen” which is presumably used for “displaying a comparison of the drilling parameters to the statistical information from the previous well data.” While the screen constitutes an additional element, it is understood to be a screen associated with a computer as recited in para. [0027] of the instant application. As such, the screen in merely a generic computer part used in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea of presenting the data. Mere recitation of computer components used to apply a judicial exception is equivalent to a limitation stating “apply it.” For example, the MPEP states “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” are limitations directed to an abstract idea as identified above with respect to claim 12. Accordingly the limitations of claim 17 do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 14 into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites the additional element of “wherein at least a portion of continuing the drilling is performed manually by an operator viewing the screen,” which is equivalent to mere directive to apply the exception as described above. Accordingly the limitations of claim 18 do not integrate the identified abstract ideas of claim 14 into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the previous well data includes rate of penetration (ROP) maps of bit rock models of previous wells that were generated using surface data from the previous wells.,” which is directed to an additional element. However, the limitation functions to limit the data used in the abstract idea according to source and/or content which does not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitation is directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:… Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:… iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly the limitations of claim 20 do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exception because the limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
Claim(s) 1—6, 8—10, and 12—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Carrillo et al., hereinafter “Carrillo” (US 20250354472 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Jain et al., hereinafter “Jain” (US 20190345809 A1). Examiner notes that Carrillo depends from a US provisional patent application which predates the earliest filing date of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, Carrillo discloses [a] method of drilling a well (Abstract, “a drilling parameter roadmap and provides the roadmap for forming a target wellbore.”), comprising:
deriving statistical information from data of previous wells that includes confidence intervals (para. [0018], “[f]or each depth segment, the parameter roadmap system generates a segment threshold for each drilling parameter. For example, the segment threshold may include an upper limit, a lower limit, or both, and may be based on any relevant statistical property. In this way, the segment thresholds may represent an expected or predicted value or range of values for drilling parameters of a target wellbore at the associated measurement depths, for example, based on the similarity of the reference wellbore(s) to the target wellbore.”; para. [0070], “[t]he roadmap manager 126 may determine the segment thresholds 358 based on one or more statistical values, ranges, properties, or other characteristic of (the measurement data of) a depth segment 356 of a drilling parameter. For example, the roadmap manager 126 may determine an upper and/or lower limit of the measurement data based on a percentile or complimentary pair of percentiles. For example, one or more segment thresholds 358 may be determined for the measurement data at a 10th percentile, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, 90th percentile, etc. In another example, one or more segment thresholds 358 may be determined based on a mean, median, mode, average, standard deviation, variance, quartile, or any other statistical measure.”) and one or more limiter overlays (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”);
detecting a drilling challenge during the drilling of the current well, wherein drilling challenges occur when one of the drilling parameters is outside of a corresponding one of the confidence intervals (see para. [0070] above, where the drilling system identifies a drilling parameter is outside of the defined range constitutes identifying a drilling challenge);
applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”);
identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”); and continuing the drilling of the current well according to the action (the citation to para. [0070] applies to this limitation as well.).
Carrillo discloses utilizing reference wellbore data 132 from a data manager 122 (e.g., see para. [0037]—[0038]) to generate the segment thresholds for each section where “the reference wellbore data may include one or more of rate of penetration (ROP) data, weight on bit (WOB) data, torque data, rotational speed (RPM) data, differential pressure data, and/or any other drilling parameter measurements associated with a downhole operation.” (Carrillo, para. [0039]). With respect to the sources of the data, Carrillo states “[t]he data manager 122 may receive the data from a variety of sources, such as from sensors, surveying tools, downhole tools, other (e.g., client) devices, libraries, databases, user input, etc.” (Carrillo, para. [0037]). Carrillo further discloses generating a drilling plan according to a parameter roadmap 400 (e.g., see Carrillo para. [0030], [0068]—[0069], and [0075]—[0078]). However, Carrillo may not explicitly disclose the limitations of:
wherein the previous well data includes rate of penetration (ROP) maps from bit rock models of the previous wells;
ascertaining drilling parameters for a current well using a bit rock model of the current well; and
drilling the current well using the drilling parameters.
Jain, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to drilling models used in wellbore planning teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Jain teaches generating rate of penetration (ROP) maps (see FIG. 4B; act 432 which generates eROP; act 434 which generates ewear; and act 442 which generates predicted ROP and wear) from bit rock models (bit mechanics model 318 bit wear model 320) as depicted in FIG. 4B.
The inclusion of the identified data of Jain (e.g., bit rock model data and associated bit wear and rate of penetration data) into the dataset of Carrillo (e.g., reference wellbore data 132) achieves all three of the above identified deficiencies. For example, Carrillo generates a parameter roadmap 400 (e.g., a drilling plan) based on previous well data (reference wellbore data 132) where inclusion of the bit rock model data would provide for a drilling plan which includes bit rock model data. Furthermore, drilling the wellbore and adjusting the operation according to the parameter roadmap, which would include the bit rock model data, achieves the limitation of drilling the well using the drilling parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the ROP and bit wear data of Jain to the reference wellbore data of Carrillo. The data generated by Jain would function as data for use in an empirical/statistical analysis in Carrillo (e.g., in both Jain and Carrillo the data is used for empirical analysis) and would provide for the predictable result of data used to create operational boundaries according to the method of Carrillo.
Claim 2 is an alternative embodiment of claim 1 which does not function to further limit or define the rejected embodiment of claim 1. For example, claim 1 is directed to an embodiment of the claim in which the drilling parameters are adjusted and claim 2 is directed to an alternative embodiment of the claim where the drilling parameters are not adjusted. While claim 2 is not rejected under the prior art of record, claim 2 is rejected for being an alternative embodiment of rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein detecting the drilling challenge is performed automatically (para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”).
Regarding claim 4, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein applying the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays is performed automatically (Carrillo, para. [0018], “[t]he segment thresholds may facilitate directing a drilling operation, and more specifically controlling the drilling parameters, for forming the target wellbore in an efficient and effective manner. In particular, the segment thresholds may facilitate implementing an autonomous drilling system for automatically (e.g., without user input) controlling and making changes to drilling parameter values by providing meaningful limits to the changes the system can make, to ensure that the system operates efficiently and to ensure that the system does not stray too far from planned or safe parameter values.”; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”).
Regarding claim 5, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the action is one or more adjustments to the drilling parameters or one or more rig actions (the adjustments are made to keep the drilling parameters within the correct thresholds which include adjustments made to the reference wellbore data including “rate of penetration (ROP) data, weight on bit (WOB) data, torque data, rotational speed (RPM) data, differential pressure data, and/or any other drilling parameter measurements associated with a downhole operation.” Carrillo, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the corresponding one of the limiter overlays is a challenge overlay that corresponds to an adverse condition and the drilling parameters associated therewith (Carrillo, para. [0018], “the segment thresholds may facilitate implementing an autonomous drilling system for automatically (e.g., without user input) controlling and making changes to drilling parameter values by providing meaningful limits to the changes the system can make, to ensure that the system operates efficiently and to ensure that the system does not stray too far from planned or safe parameter values.”; para, [0023], “while default or overly generalized parameter thresholds may provide some of the benefits described herein at a general level, by generating the parameter roadmap based on reference wellbores that are identified as being specifically applicable to the target wellbore, the parameter roadmap indicates operational thresholds for the target drilling parameters that increase efficiency and safety based on the reference wellbores having encountered the same or similar features, conditions, etc. that the target wellbore may face.” Examiner notes adverse conditions would include those which negatively impact safety or efficiency.).
Regarding claim 8, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the action includes changing one or more of the drilling parameters (the adjustments are made to keep the drilling parameters within the correct thresholds which include adjustments made to the reference wellbore data including “rate of penetration (ROP) data, weight on bit (WOB) data, torque data, rotational speed (RPM) data, differential pressure data, and/or any other drilling parameter measurements associated with a downhole operation.” Carrillo, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the drilling parameters include weight on bit (WOB) (weight on bit is a drilling parameter which has an operational threshold according to Carrillo; see para. [0039] of Carrillo and the rejection of claim 8), revolutions per minute (RPM) (rotations per minute is a drilling parameter which has an operational threshold according to Carrillo; see para. [0039] of Carrillo and the rejection of claim 8), or rate of flow.
Regarding claim 10, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the action is a wellbore action (the adjustments are made to keep the drilling parameters within the correct thresholds which include adjustments made to the reference wellbore data including “rate of penetration (ROP) data, weight on bit (WOB) data, torque data, rotational speed (RPM) data, differential pressure data, and/or any other drilling parameter measurements associated with a downhole operation.” Carrillo, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches providing a real-time visualization of the drilling of the current well with respect to the statistical information from the previous well data (para. [0075], “In some embodiments, the roadmap manager 126 may generate a parameter roadmap which may enumerate, record, or otherwise contain various segment thresholds for the various drilling parameters and at the various depth segments. For example, the parameter roadmap may be a table of values, data file, plot, figure, graph, or any other form of indicating the depth segments and associated segment thresholds.”; para. [0077], “[i]n some embodiments, the roadmap manager 126 may provide the parameter roadmap 400 for indicating, instructing, or otherwise facilitating the forming and/or steering of a target wellbore. For instance, the roadmap manager 126 may plot, display, or otherwise generate a report for presenting to indicate the parameter roadmap 400 and the associated segment thresholds. In this way, the parameter roadmap may facilitate, for example, a drilling engineer making decisions and implementing changes to a drilling operation based on the segment thresholds.”).
Regarding claim 13, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the confidence intervals are provided per a unit of depth (para. [0071], “In this way, each drilling parameter may be characterized at each depth segment 356 by one or more segment thresholds 358 (e.g., upper and lower limits). Based on the underlying reference wellbore data 132 (and the associated refence wellbore(s)) being similar to or representative of a target wellbore, the segment thresholds 358 may provide an expected or predicted value or range of values through the various measurement depths or the target wellbore for each drilling parameter that may be employed for forming the target wellbore.”), per stand, or per multiple stands.
Regarding claim 14, Carrillo discloses one or more memories having operating instructions (para. [0090], “[t]urning now to FIG. 6 , this figure illustrates certain components that may be included within a computer system 600. One or more computer systems 600 may be used to implement the various devices, components, and systems described herein.”; para. [0092], “[t]he computer system 600 also includes memory 603 in electronic communication with the processor 601. The memory 603 may include computer-readable storage media and can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer system. Computer-readable media that store computer-executable instructions are non-transitory computer-readable media (device).”) for drilling a current well using statistical information from previous well data (see para. [0018] below)… wherein the statistical information includes one or more of limiter overlays (para. [0018], “[f]or each depth segment, the parameter roadmap system generates a segment threshold for each drilling parameter. For example, the segment threshold may include an upper limit, a lower limit, or both, and may be based on any relevant statistical property. In this way, the segment thresholds may represent an expected or predicted value or range of values for drilling parameters of a target wellbore at the associated measurement depths, for example, based on the similarity of the reference wellbore(s) to the target wellbore.”; para. [0070], “[t]he roadmap manager 126 may determine the segment thresholds 358 based on one or more statistical values, ranges, properties, or other characteristic of (the measurement data of) a depth segment 356 of a drilling parameter. For example, the roadmap manager 126 may determine an upper and/or lower limit of the measurement data based on a percentile or complimentary pair of percentiles. For example, one or more segment thresholds 358 may be determined for the measurement data at a 10th percentile, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, 90th percentile, etc. In another example, one or more segment thresholds 358 may be determined based on a mean, median, mode, average, standard deviation, variance, quartile, or any other statistical measure.”) and confidence intervals (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”); and
one or more processors configured to perform operations according to the operating instructions (para. [0090], “[t]urning now to FIG. 6 , this figure illustrates certain components that may be included within a computer system 600. One or more computer systems 600 may be used to implement the various devices, components, and systems described herein.”), wherein the operations include: detecting a drilling challenge during the drilling of the current well, wherein drilling challenges occur when one of the drilling parameters is outside of a corresponding one of the confidence intervals (see para. [0070] above, where the drilling system identifies a drilling parameter is outside of the defined range constitutes identifying a drilling challenge);
applying, when determining one of the one or more limiter overlays corresponds to the drilling challenge, the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”);
identifying an action for the drilling of the current well according to the corresponding one of the one or more limiter overlays (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”); and continuing the drilling of the current well according to the action (the citation to para. [0070] applies to this limitation as well.).
Carrillo discloses utilizing reference wellbore data 132 from a data manager 122 (e.g., see para. [0037]—[0038]) to generate the segment thresholds for each section where “the reference wellbore data may include one or more of rate of penetration (ROP) data, weight on bit (WOB) data, torque data, rotational speed (RPM) data, differential pressure data, and/or any other drilling parameter measurements associated with a downhole operation.” (Carrillo, para. [0039]). With respect to the sources of the data, Carrillo states “[t]he data manager 122 may receive the data from a variety of sources, such as from sensors, surveying tools, downhole tools, other (e.g., client) devices, libraries, databases, user input, etc.” (Carrillo, para. [0037]). Carrillo further discloses generating a drilling plan according to a parameter roadmap 400 (e.g., see Carrillo para. [0030], [0068]—[0069], and [0075]—[0078]). However, Carrillo may not explicitly disclose the limitations of:
drilling a current well using… drilling parameters ascertained from a bit rock model of the current well.
Jain, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to drilling models used in wellbore planning teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Jain teaches generating rate of penetration (ROP) maps (see FIG. 4B; act 432 which generates eROP; act 434 which generates ewear; and act 442 which generates predicted ROP and wear) from bit rock models (bit mechanics model 318 bit wear model 320) as depicted in FIG. 4B.
The inclusion of the identified data of Jain (e.g., bit rock model data and associated bit wear and rate of penetration data) into the dataset of Carrillo (e.g., reference wellbore data 132) achieves the above identified deficiency. For example, Carrillo generates a parameter roadmap 400 (e.g., a drilling plan) based on previous well data (reference wellbore data 132) where inclusion of the bit rock model data would provide for a drilling plan which includes bit rock model data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the ROP and bit wear data of Jain to the reference wellbore data of Carrillo. The data generated by Jain would function as data for use in an empirical/statistical analysis in Carrillo (e.g., in both Jain and Carrillo the data is used for empirical analysis) and would provide for the predictable result of data used to create operational boundaries according to the method of Carrillo.
Claim 15 is an alternative embodiment of claim 14 which does not function to further limit or define the rejected embodiment of claim 14. For example, claim 14 is directed to an embodiment of the claim in which the drilling parameters are adjusted and claim 15 is directed to an alternative embodiment of the claim where the drilling parameters are not adjusted. While claim 15 is not rejected under the prior art of record, claim 15 is rejected for being an alternative embodiment of rejected claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the operating instructions correspond to machine learning algorithms, rules based algorithms (para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”), or algorithms of a numerical computation engine.
Regarding claim 17, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches a screen (Carrillo, para. [0097], “[o]ne specific type of output device that is typically included in a computer system 600 is a display device 615. Display devices 615 used with embodiments disclosed herein may utilize any suitable image projection technology, such as liquid crystal display (LCD), light-emitting diode (LED), gas plasma, electroluminescence, or the like. A display controller 617 may also be provided, for converting data 607 stored in the memory 603 into one or more of text, graphics, or moving images (as appropriate) shown on the display device 615.”), wherein the operations further include displaying a comparison of the drilling parameters to the statistical information from the previous well data (Carrillo, para. [0075], “In some embodiments, the roadmap manager 126 may generate a parameter roadmap which may enumerate, record, or otherwise contain various segment thresholds for the various drilling parameters and at the various depth segments. For example, the parameter roadmap may be a table of values, data file, plot, figure, graph, or any other form of indicating the depth segments and associated segment thresholds.”; para. [0077], “[i]n some embodiments, the roadmap manager 126 may provide the parameter roadmap 400 for indicating, instructing, or otherwise facilitating the forming and/or steering of a target wellbore. For instance, the roadmap manager 126 may plot, display, or otherwise generate a report for presenting to indicate the parameter roadmap 400 and the associated segment thresholds. In this way, the parameter roadmap may facilitate, for example, a drilling engineer making decisions and implementing changes to a drilling operation based on the segment thresholds.”).
Regarding claim 18, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein at least a portion of continuing the drilling is performed manually by an operator viewing the screen (Carrillo, para. [0073], “[i]n some embodiments, a downhole system may be implemented as a semi- or fully autonomous system for automatically forming a target wellbore with little or no user input. For example, an autonomous system can make real-time decisions about wellbore steering, drilling parameters, etc., with little or no human intervention.” The fact that the reference to Carrillo states that the operation may or can be performed in a fully autonomous manner implicitly teaches that the operation also may not be performed in a fully autonomous manner. Moreover, Carrillo expressly includes an option of “little” human intervention/input which inherently includes human input.).
Regarding claim 19, Carrillo discloses [a] well system for drilling a current well (downhole drilling system 100, see FIG. 1) , comprising:
surface equipment (drill rig 103); and one or more processors (para. [0090], “[t]urning now to FIG. 6 , this figure illustrates certain components that may be included within a computer system 600. One or more computer systems 600 may be used to implement the various devices, components, and systems described herein.”) configured to perform operations including:
ascertaining drilling parameters for the current well (para. [0039], “drilling parameter roadmaps may be generated for providing drilling parameter limits for instances of drilling of a target well.” See parameter roadmap 400 and para. [0076]—[0078])…,
detecting a drilling challenge during drilling of the current well using the drilling parameters (para. [0018], “[f]or each depth segment, the parameter roadmap system generates a segment threshold for each drilling parameter. For example, the segment threshold may include an upper limit, a lower limit, or both, and may be based on any relevant statistical property. In this way, the segment thresholds may represent an expected or predicted value or range of values for drilling parameters of a target wellbore at the associated measurement depths, for example, based on the similarity of the reference wellbore(s) to the target wellbore.”; para. [0070], “[t]he roadmap manager 126 may determine the segment thresholds 358 based on one or more statistical values, ranges, properties, or other characteristic of (the measurement data of) a depth segment 356 of a drilling parameter. For example, the roadmap manager 126 may determine an upper and/or lower limit of the measurement data based on a percentile or complimentary pair of percentiles. For example, one or more segment thresholds 358 may be determined for the measurement data at a 10th percentile, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, 90th percentile, etc. In another example, one or more segment thresholds 358 may be determined based on a mean, median, mode, average, standard deviation, variance, quartile, or any other statistical measure.”), wherein drilling challenges occur when one of the drilling parameters is outside of a confidence interval derived from previous well data (the claims do not require any specific definition of a drilling challenge such that any situation in which the drilling parameters are outside of the range may be considered a drilling challenge),
adjusting one or more of the drilling parameters according to at least one limiter overlay (operational adjustments made to the drilling parameters to maintain the drilling operation within the established segment threshold; para. [0070], “based on a current measurement depth of a target wellbore, a drilling system may adjust, autonomously and without user input, a drilling parameter of the target wellbore to operate within an associated segment threshold for the drilling parameter as indicated at a depth segment corresponding to the current measurement depth. Indeed, the drilling system may operate autonomously to adjust one or more (or all) of the drilling parameters one or more (or many) times as the autonomous system controls a downhole operation to form the target wellbore, and may make such adjustments in accordance with the parameter roadmap to maintain each drilling parameter within the associated segment thresholds.”) when the at least one limiter overlay corresponds to the drilling challenge (see para. [0018], any adjustments made to keep the drilling operation consistent with the generated drilling parameter ranges would read on a limiter overlay which corresponds to the drilling challenge), wherein the at least one limiter overlay is derived from the previous well data (see para. [0018], the operational ranges and therefore the adjustments are generated from the previous well data thereby meeting the limitations of the claim), and
maintaining the drilling parameters when determining the limiter overlay does not correspond to the drilling challenge (this limitation is directed to an alternative embodiment of the claim and is therefore not addressed. The claim is fully rejected by the rejection of just one embodiment where the one embodiment rejected is the one which includes modifying the drilling operation in response to the drilling parameters exceeding the established thresholds).
Carrillo discloses utilizing reference wellbore data 132 from a data manager 122 (e.g., see para. [0037]—[0038]) to generate the segment thresholds for each section where “the reference wellbore data may include one or more of rate of penetration (ROP) data, weight on bit (WOB) data, torque data, rotational speed (RPM) data, differential pressure data, and/or any other drilling parameter measurements associated with a downhole operation.” (Carrillo, para. [0039]). With respect to the sources of the data, Carrillo states “[t]he data manager 122 may receive the data from a variety of sources, such as from sensors, surveying tools, downhole tools, other (e.g., client) devices, libraries, databases, user input, etc.” (Carrillo, para. [0037]). Carrillo further discloses generating a drilling plan according to a parameter roadmap 400 (e.g., see Carrillo para. [0030], [0068]—[0069], and [0075]—[0078]). However, Carrillo may not explicitly disclose the limitations of:
ascertaining drilling parameters for the current well using a bit rock model generated using surface data from the surface equipment
Jain, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to drilling models used in wellbore planning teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Jain teaches using a bit rock model (bit mechanics model 318 bit wear model 320 as depicted in FIG. 4B) generated using surface data (surface data is an input feature of offset well data 420 which feed into the bit rock model as depicted in act 422 of FIG. 4B) from the surface equipment.
The inclusion of the identified data of Jain (e.g., bit rock model data and associated bit wear and rate of penetration data) into the dataset of Carrillo (e.g., reference wellbore data 132) achieves the above identified deficiency. For example, Carrillo generates a parameter roadmap 400 (e.g., a drilling plan) based on previous well data (reference wellbore data 132) where inclusion of the bit rock model data would provide for a drilling plan which includes bit rock model data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the ROP and bit wear data of Jain to the reference wellbore data of Carrillo. The data generated by Jain would function as data for use in an empirical/statistical analysis in Carrillo (e.g., in both Jain and Carrillo the data is used for empirical analysis) and would provide for the predictable result of data used to create operational boundaries according to the method of Carrillo.
Regarding claim 20, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the previous well data includes rate of penetration (ROP) maps (see FIG. 4B; act 432 which generates eROP; act 434 which generates ewear; and act 442 which generates predicted ROP and wear) of bit rock models (bit mechanics model 318 bit wear model 320 as depicted in FIG. 4B) of previous wells that were generated using surface data from the previous wells (see FIG. 4B of Jain where surface data as depicted in box 422 is part of offset well data 420 which informs models 318—324 to generate the rate of penetration and wear features generated in act 442).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Carrillo et al., hereinafter “Carrillo” (US 20250354472 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Jain et al., hereinafter “Jain” (US 20190345809 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Astrid et al., hereinafter “Astrid” (US 20150252664 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Carrillo modified by Jain teaches wherein the adverse condition includes one or more of bit wear (Jain teaches that there is a relationship between rate of penetration and bit wear where Carrillo includes rate of penetration and weight on bit as parameters which have operational thresholds which must be adhered to), stick slip, whirl, telemetry, geosteering, high frequency torsional oscillation, hole cleaning, washout, pack off, managed temperature drilling, stringer, or steering limitations.
In addition to the foregoing, Examiner points to the teaching of Published US Patent Application to Astrid which states “[t]he selected values, or magnitudes, of the manipulated and controlled drilling parameters highly influence the efficiency of the drilling process. For example, ROP generally increases substantially linearly with increased WOB, but there is a limit to this relationship, as the drilling process becomes inefficient at high values of WOB as a result of factors such as increased wear of the drill bit, bit balling, insufficient borehole cleaning, and drill string vibration.” (Astrid, para. [0011]). Examiner notes that efficient and safe thresholds for parameters such as weight on bit and rate of penetration, are understood to implicitly account for limiting adverse conditions such as bit wear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that operational parameters such as rate of penetration and weight on bit were related to specific adverse conditions such as bit wear which result in decreased efficiency.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Carrillo et al., hereinafter “Carrillo” (US 20250354472 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Jain et al., hereinafter “Jain” (US 20190345809 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published US Patent Application to Martin et al., hereinafter “Martin” (US 5219028 A).
Carrillo as modified by Jain may not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11, however, operations such as performing hole cleaning while drilling are ubiquitous within the technical field and are reasonably understood to be performed throughout every successful operation. For example, Martin, which is in the same field of endeavor insofar as it is directed to drilling operations states “[a] typical drilling apparatus will include a tubular drill string having a drill bit positioned on the end thereof. Throughout the drilling process, a circulating fluid (e.g., a drilling mud) is typically pumped down the drill string and through the drill bit. After flowing through the drill bit, the circulating fluid flows up the well via an annulus defined between the wall of the well bore and the outer surface of the drill string. Among other things, this flow of circulating fluid assists the drilling process and carries drill cuttings out of the well.” (Martin, Col 1, Lines 17—26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed hole cleaning operations during the recited drilling operation where hole cleaning operations are typically performed throughout any drilling operation in order to achieve the predictable result of removing cuttings from the wellbore and preventing the tubulars from getting stuck.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Fincher et al. (US 20010045300 A1) which teaches “[t]he processor 810 may also be programmed to cause the thruster to apply constant force on the bit. In one aspect of the invention, the models 812 provide the ranges or values of the selected parameters, such as the weight on bit, differential pressure across the mud motor, vibration, etc. The processor 810 adjusts the thruster force so as to maintain these parameters at their desired values.” (para. [0057]);
Published US Patent Application to Ertas et al. (US 20120123757 A1) which teaches a method of estimating and monitoring drill tool vibration, which may impact rate of penetration, in order to reduce drilling dysfunctions related to poor weight transfer to the bit, whirl, and parasitic torque generation. The method includes analyzing the drilling measurements using common statistical attributes including standard deviation, mean value, and root-mean-square;
Published US Patent Application to Wicks et al. (US 20220397029 A1) which is directed to a machine learning model, trained on historical data, which can be used to determine a suggested rate of penetration; and
Published US Patent Application to Samuel (US 20220282609 A1) which is directed to a model of drill bit wear and drilling efficiency which may be used to control operational conditions to avoid drilling dysfunction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 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, 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights