PTAB

IPR2021-00672

Helmerich & Payne Intl Drilling Co v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Well Prog Execution Facilitation System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’593 patent describes a method for controlling a well drilling operation by processing a "well prog" (a detailed well program or plan). The system assists an operator in assessing the well prog to identify action items, define corresponding responses, and trigger automated alerts or actions when an item is encountered during drilling.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Holbrook and King - Claims 19-27 are obvious over Holbrook in view of King.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holbrook (Patent 5,305,836) and King (Application # 2006/0041828).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the challenged claims merely apply the known document processing techniques of King to the conventional well drilling plan disclosed in Holbrook. Holbrook taught controlling a well drilling operation based on a pre-developed "well drilling plan," which corresponds to the claimed "well prog." This plan contained action items such as when to replace a drill bit or change mud weight based on parameters like abrasive wear or pore pressure. King taught a generic system for acting on information captured from rendered documents; it disclosed receiving a paper document by scanning it, converting it to a computer-readable format using optical character recognition (OCR), assessing the text to identify keywords (the claimed "action items"), associating specific actions with those keywords in a database, and performing the associated actions. Petitioner contended that the combination of these references taught every limitation of independent claim 19. For example, receiving the well prog was taught by applying King’s scanning process to Holbrook’s plan, and controlling the drilling operation was taught by using King's system to trigger the operational controls described in Holbrook based on keywords identified in the plan. Petitioner further argued that the limitations of dependent claims 20-27 were also explicitly taught by the combination, as King disclosed using an optical scanner (claim 20), performing OCR (claim 21), and comparing text to a database of keywords and actions (claims 22-23).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine King with Holbrook to improve and automate the process of executing a well drilling plan. King expressly stated its system could be "straightforwardly adapted or extended in various ways" for use with a "wide variety of... documents." A POSITA would have seen the benefit of applying King's system to Holbrook's plan to reduce human error and increase efficiency. For example, King's methods could be used to automatically extract operational limits (e.g., bit wear limits) from the plan and input them into Holbrook's control system, or to add scheduled drilling activities to an operator's calendar, thereby facilitating adherence to the plan.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Holbrook already disclosed a computer-based system for controlling drilling operations. King disclosed a software-based document processing system. Petitioner argued there were no technical impediments to integrating King's known software techniques with Holbrook's system to process its well drilling plan, as it was a straightforward application of a known technique to a known system to yield predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the term "well prog" should be construed to include "a non-computer readable document containing information for planning and chronicling the steps of well drilling." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification, which described a well prog as a detailed document, often in hard copy, that is received and then "converted" into a computer-readable format. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument, as it established Holbrook's physical "well drilling plan" as the claimed "well prog," thereby creating the foundation to apply King's document scanning and processing techniques.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv (§314(a)) because the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages. Petitioner asserted that minimal investment had been made by the court and parties, as no depositions had been taken, document production was minimal, and no substantive orders had been issued. Furthermore, Petitioner noted that the district court judge indicated a likelihood of granting a stay if an inter partes review (IPR) was instituted, which would conserve judicial and party resources.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), contending that the ground presented was not the same or substantially the same as arguments previously presented to the USPTO. The Holbrook-King combination and the specific arguments for obviousness were entirely new and had not been considered during the original prosecution of the ’593 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 19-27 of the ’593 patent as unpatentable.