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 10/27/2025. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional US Patent Application (63/718,824) filed on 11/11/2024, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 04/06/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites an acronym (e.g., “CT”) without a previous presentation of the full term which examiner believes is likely “coiled tubing,” or an equivalent thereof. The claim should be amended such that the first presentation of “CT” is presented as the full term along with the acronym if an acronym is to be used.
Claim 7 recites “… circulating pressure, or wellhead pressure, or combinations thereof,” which examiner believes should likely read “… circulating pressure, wellhead pressure, or combinations thereof.”
Claim 17 recites an acronym (e.g., “CT”) without a previous presentation of the full term which examiner believes is likely “coiled tubing,” or an equivalent thereof. The claim should be amended such that the first presentation of “CT” is presented as the full term along with the acronym if an acronym is to be used.
Claim 17 recites “… circulating pressure, or wellhead pressure, or combinations thereof,” which examiner believes should likely read “… circulating pressure, wellhead pressure, or combinations thereof.”
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 6 and 16 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.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the claim limitation “estimating a pseudo-gradient.” Based on the claim alone, it is unclear what the pseudo-gradient is intended to be. For example, the claim does not recite the type of data with which the pseudo-gradient is associated (e.g., temperature, pressure, velocity, density, and so forth). Furthermore, it is unclear what aspect of the gradient makes it a “pseudo” gradient. Accordingly claims 6 and 16 are rendered indefinite because it is unclear what the pseudo-gradient is supposed to be. For the purposes of examination, the pseudo-gradient is understood to be any measured change in pressure, temperature, density, velocity, or viscosity across any given distance or threshold.
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, 11, and 20 are directed to a system (machine or manufacture), a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 1 recites the abstract limitations of:
“receiving downhole data associated with downhole parameters of a first well operation from one or more sources” (e.g., a mental process);
“generating… a tubing force model (TFM) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept)
“monitoring one or more surface parameters associated with a second well operation” (e.g., a mental process);
“calculating and/or estimating weight on bit (WOB), pull on bit (POB), torque, and/or downhole pressure based on the TFM and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept); and
“calculating and/or estimating a downhole parameter for the second well operation based on the calculated and/or estimated WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept).
Claim 11 recites the abstract limitations of:
“receiving downhole data associated with downhole parameters of a first well operation from one or more sources” (e.g., a mental process);
“generating… a tubing force model (TFM) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept)
“monitoring one or more surface parameters associated with a second well operation” (e.g., a mental process);
“calculating and/or estimating weight on bit (WOB), pull on bit (POB), torque, and/or downhole pressure based on the TFM and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept); and
“calculating and/or estimating a downhole parameter for the second well operation based on the calculated and/or estimated WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept).
Claim 20 recites the abstract limitations of:
“receiving downhole data associated with downhole parameters of a first well operation from one or more sources” (e.g., a mental process);
“generating… a tubing force model (TFM) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept)
“monitoring one or more surface parameters associated with a second well operation” (e.g., a mental process);
“calculating and/or estimating weight on bit (WOB), pull on bit (POB), torque, and/or downhole pressure based on the TFM and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept); and
“calculating and/or estimating a downhole parameter for the second well operation based on the calculated and/or estimated WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure” (e.g., a mental process and/or a mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover abstract ideas directed to mental processes, mathematical concepts, and/or combinations thereof. For example, actions such as “using… an infinite acting model” and “determining a distance of pressure influence in the geologic formation” constitute processes which may be performed in a human mind with or without the benefit of a mathematical concept or may be directed to a mathematical concept without a mental process. The action of “receiving sensor data” is a mental process insofar as a human mind is capable of receiving data in the manner as recited in the claim (e.g., reading data presented on a display).
For example, the MPEP states the following regarding mental processes:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
For example, the MPEP states the following regarding mathematical calculations:
“[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C).
Accordingly, the above identified limitations are directed to abstract ideas such that claims 1, 19, and 20 recite 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 additional elements of:
“a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”); and
“controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter” (e.g., a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
Claim 11 recites additional elements of:
“controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter” (e.g., a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
Claim 20 recites additional elements of:
“one or more processors” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
“a memory” (e.g., recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to reciting “apply it”); and
“controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter” (e.g., a generic application recited at a high—level of generality equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
The above identified limitations of claims 1, 19, and 20 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. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
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).
Claims 1, 11, and 20 state the limitation “controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter,” which, at best, constitutes a mere directive to apply the judicial exception in a manner which does not provide for a practical application. For example, the limitation directed to adjusting the generically recited parameter is not tied in any specific manner to the claimed judicial exceptions. With respect to limitations which constitutes mere directives to apply the exception (e.g., equivalent to “apply it”) the MPEP states:
“[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The 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, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 are merely directed to the idea of a solution or outcome and do not properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application include the limitations of Diehr. For example, the MPEP states “[i]n contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation ‘in a rubber molding process’. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of Diehr which integrated the abstract idea (e.g., calculations using the Arrhenius equation) into a practical application (e.g., opening the press automatically once the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception than that of the instant claims. For example, Diehr did not merely state “controlling the mold based on a calculated temperature.” Accordingly the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claims 1 and 20 recite additional elements including “a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium” (e.g., claim 1); “one or more processors” (e.g., claim 20); and “a memory” (e.g., claim 20) which constitute generically recited computer components and do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use 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). Similarly, ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (MPEP 2106.05(f), Section 2). Accordingly the limitations of claims 1 and 20 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations are equivalent to a 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 12 are directed to generating a downhole flowrate and pressure model which constitutes abstract ideas including mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (e.g.. see MPEP citation provided above). Accordingly claims 2 and 12 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 because claims 2 and 12 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 3 and 13 recite actions including “calculating” and “estimating” operational values based on models. Such actions are directed to abstract ideas including mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., see MPEP citation provided above). Accordingly claims 3 and 13 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 because claims 3 and 13 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 4 and 14 recite actions including actions including “calculating” and “estimating” operational values based on models. Such actions are directed to abstract ideas including mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., see MPEP citation provided above). Accordingly claims 4 and 14 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 because claims 4 and 14 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 5 and 15 recite limitations directed to generic computer components (e.g., a downhole well tool having a memory for storing downhole data) which constitutes an additional element. However, recitation of generic computer components is equivalent to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions and cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use 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). Similarly, ‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (MPEP 2106.05(f), Section 2). Accordingly, while the limitations of claims 5 and 15 recite additional elements, the additional elements do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because recitation of generic computer components used in performing an abstract idea are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claims 6 and 16 further define the manner in which the tubing force model of claims 1 and 11 is generated including the calculation and/or estimation of a numerical value associated with the model. Such limitations are directed to the abstract ideas of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., see MPEP citation provided above). Accordingly claims 6 and 16 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 because claims 6 and 16 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 7 and 17 recite limitations directed to the specific type of data used to perform the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11. While such limitations constitute additional elements, they are directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity and cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. 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)). Furthermore, the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly claims 7 and 17 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 because claims 7 and 17 are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 8 and 18 recite limitations directed to mathematical concepts and mental processes including “calculating and/or estimating” and “averaging” and are therefore directed to abstract ideas (e.g., see MPEP citation provided above). Accordingly claims 6 and 16 do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 11 because claims 6 and 16 are themselves directed to abstract ideas.
Claims 9 and 19 further define the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 11 by naming specific features which are calculated/estimated by the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 9 and 19 function to further narrow the abstract idea in a manner which is itself abstract and therefore cannot provide for a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites a specific field of use in which the abstract idea is used (e.g., milling operations). The field of use is recited at a high level of generality and merely functions to link the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. With respect to such limitations the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly claim 10 does not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 1 because claim 10 is merely indicative of the field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5—7, 9—11, 15—17, and 19—20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Hadi et al., hereinafter “Hadi” (US 20180283157 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hadi discloses receiving downhole data associated with downhole parameters (para. [0099], “[a]t block 402, the BHA 170 measures downhole ΔP, downhole WOB, and downhole TOB as the drill bit 175 is engaged with the bottom 173. For example, the downhole ΔP sensor 232 of the BHA 170 may detect the downhole ΔP, the downhole WOB sensor 245 may detect the downhole WOB, and the downhole TOB sensor 242 may detect the downhole TOB.” Examiner notes that WOB is “weight on bit” and TOB is “torque on bit”) of a first well operation (see above citation to para. [0099], “as the drill bit 175 is engaged with the bottom 173”) from one or more sources (BHA 170, WOB sensor 245, TOB sensor 242);
generating and/or training a tubing force model (TFM) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation (para. [0100], “[a]t block 404, the BHA 170 determines relationships between downhole ΔP and downhole WOB as well as between downhole ΔP and downhole TOB… The BHA controller 235 may use some “form of regression (e.g., linear or non-linear, etc.) to determine the relationship, which may be expressed in the form of one or more WOB coefficients for the downhole ΔP-WOB relationship, and one or more TOB coefficients for the downhole ΔP-TOB relationship.” See also para. [0101]—[0102] and blocks 404—408 of FIG. 4)
monitoring one or more surface parameters associated with a second well operation (para. [0103], “[a]t block 410, surface ΔP is measured by a surface ΔP sensor 280 and input into the control system 195 for use in estimating downhole WOB and downhole TOB values, which are in turn used in an autodriller feedback loop (e.g., by the controller 210).” Examiner notes the surface pressure is measured during a second well operation which may include any operation which occurs after the step of measuring the data at block 402);
calculating and/or estimating weight on bit (WOB), pull on bit (POB), torque, and/or downhole pressure based on the TFM and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation (para. [0104], “[a]t block 412, the control system 195 estimates the downhole WOB value using the surface ΔP value measured at block 410, input into the formula for WOB that has implemented the downhole ΔP-WOB relationship (i.e., the coefficients from the BHA 170). Further, the control system 195 estimates the downhole TOB value using the surface ΔP value measured at block 410, input into the formula for TOB that has implemented the downhole ΔP-TOB relationships (i.e., the coefficients from the BHA 170).”);
calculating and/or estimating a downhole parameter for the second well operation based on the calculated and/or estimated WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure (para. [0079], “the control module 218 may track the ratio of the estimated downhole WOB values to surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275). The control module 218 may generate the ratio as a value and perform different operations thereon. For example, the control module 218 may keep a running log of values for the ratio over time (e.g., within a time window or not).”; para. [0106], “[a]t block 416, the control system 195 analyzes the ratio between downhole WOB (whether estimated at block 412 or received from the BHA 170) and surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275) and controls the drill string 155 based on the results. The analysis may include a comparison between the most recent ratio to one or more prior ratios. If the result of the comparison identifies a negative value for the change value between the two ratios, then this may cause the control system 195 to change (e.g., reduce or zero) the slack-off rate of the drill string 155 in the wellbore 160 to reduce or stop feeding the drill string 155 into the wellbore 160.” Examiner notes the WOB ratio which includes the estimated downhole WOB constitutes a calculated downhole parameter); and
controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter (see citation to para. [0106] as provided above along with para. [0107], “[o]ther parameters may also be adjusted as part of the control at block 416, including for example oscillation speed, mud motor speed, and rate of penetration setpoint to name a few examples. Adjustment may alternate between adjusting the slack-off rate and the other parameters to improve the ratio to reach a zero or positive value again. Once the ratio reaches a zero or positive value again, the control system 195 may resume one or more of the changed drilling parameters to resume the weight transfer from the top drive 140 to the drill string 155.” The drilling operation parameters are controlled based on the WOB ratio).
Regarding claim 5, Hadi discloses wherein the one or more sources comprise a downhole well tool having a memory for storing downhole data during a well operation (para. [0035], “[t]he control system configuration 200 may include a BHA controller 235 at the BHA 170”; para. [0036], “[t]he BHA controller 235 may include at least a memory 237, a processor 239, and a relation module 238. The memory 237 may include a cache memory (e.g., a cache memory of the processor), random access memory (RAM), magnetoresistive RAM (MRAM), read-only memory (ROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, solid state memory device, hard disk drives, other forms of volatile and non-volatile memory, or a combination of different types of memory. In some embodiments, the memory 237 may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium.”).
Regarding claim 6, Hadi discloses wherein generating and/or training the TFM comprises calculating and/or estimating a pseudo-gradient and tuning the TFM based on the estimated pseudo-gradient (para. [0041], “[t]he BHA 170 may also include a downhole mud motor ΔP (differential pressure) sensor 232 (referred to simply herein as a downhole ΔP sensor 232) that is configured to detect a pressure differential value or range across the mud motor of the BHA 170. This may be a value in reference to the pressure just off-bottom and pressure once the bit touches bottom and starts drilling and experiencing torque.”; para. [0069], “[t]he surface ΔP sensor 280 is configured to detect a pressure differential value between the surface standpipe pressure while the BHA 170 is just off-bottom from bottom 173 and surface standpipe pressure once the bit of BHA 170 touches bottom 173 and starts drilling and experiencing torque (and generating cuttings). Typically, the surface ΔP detected by the surface ΔP sensor 280 represents how much pressure the mud motor at the BHA 170 is generating in the system, which is a function of mud motor torque.”; para. [0154], “measuring, by a bottom hole assembly (BHA), a downhole differential pressure at the BHA and a downhole weight on bit (WOB); determining, by a controller at the BHA, a relationship between the downhole differential pressure and the downhole WOB.”)
Regarding claim 7, Hadi discloses wherein the one or more surface parameters comprise CT depth, CT weight, circulating pressure, or wellhead pressure (para. [0069], “[t]he surface ΔP sensor 280 is configured to detect a pressure differential value between the surface standpipe pressure while the BHA 170 is just off-bottom from bottom 173 and surface standpipe pressure once the bit of BHA 170 touches bottom 173 and starts drilling and experiencing torque (and generating cuttings). Typically, the surface ΔP detected by the surface ΔP sensor 280 represents how much pressure the mud motor at the BHA 170 is generating in the system, which is a function of mud motor torque.” See FIG. 4, where the surface ΔP is the surface parameter used to estimate WOB and/or TOB), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Hadi discloses wherein the calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter for the second well operation comprises downhole thrust including WOB or POB, downhole torque, downhole pressures, or a combination thereof (para. [0079], “the control module 218 may track the ratio of the estimated downhole WOB values to surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275). The control module 218 may generate the ratio as a value and perform different operations thereon. For example, the control module 218 may keep a running log of values for the ratio over time (e.g., within a time window or not).”; para. [0106], “[a]t block 416, the control system 195 analyzes the ratio between downhole WOB (whether estimated at block 412 or received from the BHA 170) and surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275) and controls the drill string 155 based on the results. The analysis may include a comparison between the most recent ratio to one or more prior ratios.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, WOB ratio comprises a thrust because it comprises a WOB as required by the claim.).
Regarding claim 10, Hadi discloses wherein the first and second well operations comprise milling operations (Hadi teaches a drilling operation which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reads on a milling operation as claimed.).
Regarding claim 11, Hadi discloses receiving downhole data associated with downhole parameters (para. [0099], “[a]t block 402, the BHA 170 measures downhole ΔP, downhole WOB, and downhole TOB as the drill bit 175 is engaged with the bottom 173. For example, the downhole ΔP sensor 232 of the BHA 170 may detect the downhole ΔP, the downhole WOB sensor 245 may detect the downhole WOB, and the downhole TOB sensor 242 may detect the downhole TOB.” Examiner notes that WOB is “weight on bit” and TOB is “torque on bit”) of a first well operation (see above citation to para. [0099], “as the drill bit 175 is engaged with the bottom 173”) from one or more sources (BHA 170, WOB sensor 245, TOB sensor 242);
generating and/or training a tubing force model (TFM) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation (para. [0100], “[a]t block 404, the BHA 170 determines relationships between downhole ΔP and downhole WOB as well as between downhole ΔP and downhole TOB… The BHA controller 235 may use some “form of regression (e.g., linear or non-linear, etc.) to determine the relationship, which may be expressed in the form of one or more WOB coefficients for the downhole ΔP-WOB relationship, and one or more TOB coefficients for the downhole ΔP-TOB relationship.” See also para. [0101]—[0102] and blocks 404—408 of FIG. 4)
monitoring one or more surface parameters associated with a second well operation (para. [0103], “[a]t block 410, surface ΔP is measured by a surface ΔP sensor 280 and input into the control system 195 for use in estimating downhole WOB and downhole TOB values, which are in turn used in an autodriller feedback loop (e.g., by the controller 210).” Examiner notes the surface pressure is measured during a second well operation which may include any operation which occurs after the step of measuring the data at block 402);
calculating and/or estimating weight on bit (WOB), pull on bit (POB), torque, and/or downhole pressure based on the TFM and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation (para. [0104], “[a]t block 412, the control system 195 estimates the downhole WOB value using the surface ΔP value measured at block 410, input into the formula for WOB that has implemented the downhole ΔP-WOB relationship (i.e., the coefficients from the BHA 170). Further, the control system 195 estimates the downhole TOB value using the surface ΔP value measured at block 410, input into the formula for TOB that has implemented the downhole ΔP-TOB relationships (i.e., the coefficients from the BHA 170).”);
calculating and/or estimating a downhole parameter for the second well operation based on the calculated and/or estimated WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure (para. [0079], “the control module 218 may track the ratio of the estimated downhole WOB values to surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275). The control module 218 may generate the ratio as a value and perform different operations thereon. For example, the control module 218 may keep a running log of values for the ratio over time (e.g., within a time window or not).”; para. [0106], “[a]t block 416, the control system 195 analyzes the ratio between downhole WOB (whether estimated at block 412 or received from the BHA 170) and surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275) and controls the drill string 155 based on the results. The analysis may include a comparison between the most recent ratio to one or more prior ratios. If the result of the comparison identifies a negative value for the change value between the two ratios, then this may cause the control system 195 to change (e.g., reduce or zero) the slack-off rate of the drill string 155 in the wellbore 160 to reduce or stop feeding the drill string 155 into the wellbore 160.” Examiner notes the WOB ratio which includes the estimated downhole WOB constitutes a calculated downhole parameter); and
controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter (see citation to para. [0106] as provided above along with para. [0107], “[o]ther parameters may also be adjusted as part of the control at block 416, including for example oscillation speed, mud motor speed, and rate of penetration setpoint to name a few examples. Adjustment may alternate between adjusting the slack-off rate and the other parameters to improve the ratio to reach a zero or positive value again. Once the ratio reaches a zero or positive value again, the control system 195 may resume one or more of the changed drilling parameters to resume the weight transfer from the top drive 140 to the drill string 155.” The drilling operation parameters are controlled based on the WOB ratio).
Regarding claim 15, Hadi discloses wherein the one or more sources comprise a downhole well tool having a memory for storing downhole data during a well operation (para. [0035], “[t]he control system configuration 200 may include a BHA controller 235 at the BHA 170”; para. [0036], “[t]he BHA controller 235 may include at least a memory 237, a processor 239, and a relation module 238. The memory 237 may include a cache memory (e.g., a cache memory of the processor), random access memory (RAM), magnetoresistive RAM (MRAM), read-only memory (ROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, solid state memory device, hard disk drives, other forms of volatile and non-volatile memory, or a combination of different types of memory. In some embodiments, the memory 237 may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium.”).
Regarding claim 16, Hadi discloses wherein generating and/or training the TFM comprises calculating and/or estimating a pseudo-gradient and tuning the TFM based on the estimated pseudo-gradient (para. [0041], “[t]he BHA 170 may also include a downhole mud motor ΔP (differential pressure) sensor 232 (referred to simply herein as a downhole ΔP sensor 232) that is configured to detect a pressure differential value or range across the mud motor of the BHA 170. This may be a value in reference to the pressure just off-bottom and pressure once the bit touches bottom and starts drilling and experiencing torque.”; para. [0069], “[t]he surface ΔP sensor 280 is configured to detect a pressure differential value between the surface standpipe pressure while the BHA 170 is just off-bottom from bottom 173 and surface standpipe pressure once the bit of BHA 170 touches bottom 173 and starts drilling and experiencing torque (and generating cuttings). Typically, the surface ΔP detected by the surface ΔP sensor 280 represents how much pressure the mud motor at the BHA 170 is generating in the system, which is a function of mud motor torque.”; para. [0154], “measuring, by a bottom hole assembly (BHA), a downhole differential pressure at the BHA and a downhole weight on bit (WOB); determining, by a controller at the BHA, a relationship between the downhole differential pressure and the downhole WOB.”)
Regarding claim 17, Hadi discloses wherein the one or more surface parameters comprise CT depth, CT weight, circulating pressure, or wellhead pressure (para. [0069], “[t]he surface ΔP sensor 280 is configured to detect a pressure differential value between the surface standpipe pressure while the BHA 170 is just off-bottom from bottom 173 and surface standpipe pressure once the bit of BHA 170 touches bottom 173 and starts drilling and experiencing torque (and generating cuttings). Typically, the surface ΔP detected by the surface ΔP sensor 280 represents how much pressure the mud motor at the BHA 170 is generating in the system, which is a function of mud motor torque.” See FIG. 4, where the surface ΔP is the surface parameter used to estimate WOB and/or TOB), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Hadi discloses wherein the calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter for the second well operation comprises downhole thrust including WOB or POB, downhole torque, downhole pressures, or a combination thereof (para. [0079], “the control module 218 may track the ratio of the estimated downhole WOB values to surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275). The control module 218 may generate the ratio as a value and perform different operations thereon. For example, the control module 218 may keep a running log of values for the ratio over time (e.g., within a time window or not).”; para. [0106], “[a]t block 416, the control system 195 analyzes the ratio between downhole WOB (whether estimated at block 412 or received from the BHA 170) and surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275) and controls the drill string 155 based on the results. The analysis may include a comparison between the most recent ratio to one or more prior ratios.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, WOB ratio comprises a thrust because it comprises a WOB as required by the claim.).
Regarding claim 20, Hadi discloses one or more processors (processors 214 as described in para. [0061]—[0062]; processor 239); and a memory (memory 212; memory 237), including instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving downhole data associated with downhole parameters (para. [0099], “[a]t block 402, the BHA 170 measures downhole ΔP, downhole WOB, and downhole TOB as the drill bit 175 is engaged with the bottom 173. For example, the downhole ΔP sensor 232 of the BHA 170 may detect the downhole ΔP, the downhole WOB sensor 245 may detect the downhole WOB, and the downhole TOB sensor 242 may detect the downhole TOB.” Examiner notes that WOB is “weight on bit” and TOB is “torque on bit”) of a first well operation (see above citation to para. [0099], “as the drill bit 175 is engaged with the bottom 173”) from one or more sources (BHA 170, WOB sensor 245, TOB sensor 242);
generating and/or training a tubing force model (TFM) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation (para. [0100], “[a]t block 404, the BHA 170 determines relationships between downhole ΔP and downhole WOB as well as between downhole ΔP and downhole TOB… The BHA controller 235 may use some “form of regression (e.g., linear or non-linear, etc.) to determine the relationship, which may be expressed in the form of one or more WOB coefficients for the downhole ΔP-WOB relationship, and one or more TOB coefficients for the downhole ΔP-TOB relationship.” See also para. [0101]—[0102] and blocks 404—408 of FIG. 4)
monitoring one or more surface parameters associated with a second well operation (para. [0103], “[a]t block 410, surface ΔP is measured by a surface ΔP sensor 280 and input into the control system 195 for use in estimating downhole WOB and downhole TOB values, which are in turn used in an autodriller feedback loop (e.g., by the controller 210).” Examiner notes the surface pressure is measured during a second well operation which may include any operation which occurs after the step of measuring the data at block 402);
calculating and/or estimating weight on bit (WOB), pull on bit (POB), torque, and/or downhole pressure based on the TFM and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation (para. [0104], “[a]t block 412, the control system 195 estimates the downhole WOB value using the surface ΔP value measured at block 410, input into the formula for WOB that has implemented the downhole ΔP-WOB relationship (i.e., the coefficients from the BHA 170). Further, the control system 195 estimates the downhole TOB value using the surface ΔP value measured at block 410, input into the formula for TOB that has implemented the downhole ΔP-TOB relationships (i.e., the coefficients from the BHA 170).”);
calculating and/or estimating a downhole parameter for the second well operation based on the calculated and/or estimated WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure (para. [0079], “the control module 218 may track the ratio of the estimated downhole WOB values to surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275). The control module 218 may generate the ratio as a value and perform different operations thereon. For example, the control module 218 may keep a running log of values for the ratio over time (e.g., within a time window or not).”; para. [0106], “[a]t block 416, the control system 195 analyzes the ratio between downhole WOB (whether estimated at block 412 or received from the BHA 170) and surface-determined WOB values (e.g., determined from hookload measurements from the hook load sensor 275) and controls the drill string 155 based on the results. The analysis may include a comparison between the most recent ratio to one or more prior ratios. If the result of the comparison identifies a negative value for the change value between the two ratios, then this may cause the control system 195 to change (e.g., reduce or zero) the slack-off rate of the drill string 155 in the wellbore 160 to reduce or stop feeding the drill string 155 into the wellbore 160.” Examiner notes the WOB ratio which includes the estimated downhole WOB constitutes a calculated downhole parameter); and
controlling an operating parameter of the second well operation based at least in part on calculated and/or estimated downhole parameter (see citation to para. [0106] as provided above along with para. [0107], “[o]ther parameters may also be adjusted as part of the control at block 416, including for example oscillation speed, mud motor speed, and rate of penetration setpoint to name a few examples. Adjustment may alternate between adjusting the slack-off rate and the other parameters to improve the ratio to reach a zero or positive value again. Once the ratio reaches a zero or positive value again, the control system 195 may resume one or more of the changed drilling parameters to resume the weight transfer from the top drive 140 to the drill string 155.” The drilling operation parameters are controlled based on the WOB ratio).
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) 2—4 and 12—14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Hadi et al., hereinafter “Hadi” (US 20180283157 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Published WIPO Application to Dvorak et al., hereinafter “Dvorak” (WO 2022271591 A1).
Hadi may not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 2. Dvorak which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to simulators using in drilling and milling operations teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Dvorak teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating and/or training a downhole flowrate and pressure model (flow simulator 82; para. [0054], “various simulators relating to coiled tubing operations may be used in conjunction with each other in a heterogeneous manner, as described in greater detail herein. As illustrated in FIG. 3, a few non-limiting examples include a flow simulator 82 (e.g., to simulate pressures, temperatures, and flow rates of fluids into, through, and out of the wellbore 14 at various locations along the wellbore 14)”) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation and flowrate data associated with the first well operation (para. [0055], “the flow simulator 82 may include inputs such as which fluids 32 are currently being injected into the wellbore 14 by the pump unit 56, know flow rates of these fluids 32 at certain locations (e.g., flow rates of the fluid 32 discharged from the pump unit 56, flow rates of the return fluid 34 received by the flowback equipment 58), pressure in the wellbore 14 at a given depth along the wellbore 14.” Discrete flow model values are generated by populating the flow simulator with pressure and flow data).
Dvorak teaches that two heterogeneous simulators including a flow simulator as provided above, and a weight simulator (e.g., interchangeable with the portion provided by Hadi) may be used in combination for the purpose of simulating coiled tubing operations and making decisions based on the simulation (e.g., see para. [0006]—[0008] and [0050]). Furthermore, the values which Dvorak takes as inputs (e.g., downhole pressures) are values which are measured by Hadi. As such, 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 model features of Dvorak to the model features of Hadi to create two heterogenous models which function together. The operation of each feature of Dvorak functions the same as described in Dvorak as combined with Hadi to create the predictable result of two heterogenous models related to coiled tubing operations (e.g., weight related model and flow rate related model) which function together to provide operational performance information related to the drilling and/or coiled tubing operation.
Regarding claim 3, Hadi modified by Dvorak teach wherein the operations further comprise calculating and/or estimating a downhole flowrate, a pressure, or both (Dvorak, flow simulator 82; para. [0054], “a flow simulator 82 (e.g., to simulate pressures, temperatures, and flow rates of fluids into, through, and out of the wellbore 14 at various locations along the wellbore 14)”, based on the downhole flowrate and pressure model and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation (para. [0055], “the flow simulator 82 may include inputs such as which fluids 32 are currently being injected into the wellbore 14 by the pump unit 56, know flow rates of these fluids 32 at certain locations (e.g., flow rates of the fluid 32 discharged from the pump unit 56, flow rates of the return fluid 34 received by the flowback equipment 58), pressure in the wellbore 14 at a given depth along the wellbore 14.” Discrete flow model values are generated by populating the flow simulator with pressure and flow data).
Regarding claim 4, Hadi modified Dvorak teach wherein the operations further comprise calculating and/or estimating WOB (the model generated by Hadi performs this limitation), POB, torque (the model generated by Hadi performs this limitation), downhole pressure (the model of Dvorak performs this limitation) or other downhole parameters in real time (the model generated by Hadi and the model of Dvorak perform this limitation) based on surface parameters (both the models of Hadi and the model of Dvorak take surface parameters including pressure and calculate downhole operational features) and a combination of trained models wherein the trained models comprise the TFM (Hadi provides the specific tubing force model) and the downhole flowrate and pressure model (Dvorak provides the flowrate and pressure model).
Hadi may not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 12. Dvorak which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to simulators using in drilling and milling operations teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Dvorak teaches generating and/or training a downhole flowrate and pressure model (flow simulator 82; para. [0054], “various simulators relating to coiled tubing operations may be used in conjunction with each other in a heterogeneous manner, as described in greater detail herein. As illustrated in FIG. 3, a few non-limiting examples include a flow simulator 82 (e.g., to simulate pressures, temperatures, and flow rates of fluids into, through, and out of the wellbore 14 at various locations along the wellbore 14)”) based on the downhole data associated with the first well operation and flowrate data associated with the first well operation (para. [0055], “the flow simulator 82 may include inputs such as which fluids 32 are currently being injected into the wellbore 14 by the pump unit 56, know flow rates of these fluids 32 at certain locations (e.g., flow rates of the fluid 32 discharged from the pump unit 56, flow rates of the return fluid 34 received by the flowback equipment 58), pressure in the wellbore 14 at a given depth along the wellbore 14.” Discrete flow model values are generated by populating the flow simulator with pressure and flow data).
Dvorak teaches that two heterogeneous simulators including a flow simulator as provided above, and a weight simulator (e.g., interchangeable with the portion provided by Hadi) may be used in combination for the purpose of simulating coiled tubing operations and making decisions based on the simulation (e.g., see para. [0006]—[0008] and [0050]). Furthermore, the values which Dvorak takes as inputs (e.g., downhole pressures) are values which are measured by Hadi. As such, 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 model features of Dvorak to the model features of Hadi to create two heterogenous models which function together. The operation of each feature of Dvorak functions the same as described in Dvorak as combined with Hadi to create the predictable result of two heterogenous models related to coiled tubing operations (e.g., weight related model and flow rate related model) which function together to provide operational performance information related to the drilling and/or coiled tubing operation.
Regarding claim 13, Hadi modified by Dvorak teach calculating and/or estimating a downhole flowrate, a pressure, or both (Dvorak, flow simulator 82; para. [0054], “a flow simulator 82 (e.g., to simulate pressures, temperatures, and flow rates of fluids into, through, and out of the wellbore 14 at various locations along the wellbore 14)”, based on the downhole flowrate and pressure model and the one or more surface parameters associated with the second well operation (para. [0055], “the flow simulator 82 may include inputs such as which fluids 32 are currently being injected into the wellbore 14 by the pump unit 56, know flow rates of these fluids 32 at certain locations (e.g., flow rates of the fluid 32 discharged from the pump unit 56, flow rates of the return fluid 34 received by the flowback equipment 58), pressure in the wellbore 14 at a given depth along the wellbore 14.” Discrete flow model values are generated by populating the flow simulator with pressure and flow data).
Regarding claim 14, Hadi modified by Dvorak teach calculating and/or estimating WOB (the model generated by Hadi performs this limitation), POB, torque (the model generated by Hadi performs this limitation), downhole pressure (the model of Dvorak performs this limitation) or other downhole parameters in real time (the model generated by Hadi and the model of Dvorak perform this limitation) based on surface parameters (both the models of Hadi and the model of Dvorak take surface parameters including pressure and calculate downhole operational features) and a combination of trained models wherein the trained models comprise the TFM (Hadi provides the specific tubing force model) and the downhole flowrate and pressure model (Dvorak provides the flowrate and pressure model).
Subject Matter Not Rejected Under the Prior Art
Claims 8 and 18 do not include a prior art rejection; however, claims 8 and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the limitations recite abstract ideas and depend from claims which recite abstract ideas without the provision of a practical application or significantly more.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Hadi discusses using time series data to generate the pressure-WOB and pressure-TOB model (e.g., which may include averaging models, see para. [0049]) and while Hadi discusses averaging prior ratios (e.g., which are calculated from weight on bit and torque on bit calculations), Hadi does not disclose “calculating and/or estimating downhole torque based on average WOB, POB, torque, and/or downhole pressure.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Popp et al. (US 20220162922 A1) which teaches a method of adjusting the operational parameters of a milling operation based on a calculated mechanical specific energy (e.g., “MSE”). Examiner notes that MSE is one of the downhole parameters calculated as part of the analysis performed by the primary reference to Hadi;
Published US Patent Application to Morrison et al. (US 20200370379 A1) which teaches a model that utilizes flowrates, pressures, weight on bit, and torque to automate downhole processes in a coiled tubing mill-out operation (e.g., see FIGs. 5—7 and 9);
Published US Patent Application to Liu et al. (US 20220213778 A1) which teaches a model that utilizes flowrates, pressures, weight on bit, and torque to automate downhole processes related to determining a preferred weight on bit in a coiled tubing mill-out operation (e.g., see FIGs. 5—7, 9, and 10); and
Issued US Patent Application to Jain et al. (US 11066917 B2) which is directed to a rate of penetration drilling model which takes surface and downhole parameters as inputs to multiple model modules (e.g., see FIG. 3A) including a torque model.
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
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights