DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed April 10, 2026, the applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 17.
Currently claims 1, 3, 5, 7-18, 21 and 23-25 are under examination.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-17, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (U.S. Patent No. 9,410,420) in view of Stephens (U.S. Patent No. 10,113,410), further in view of Coles (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0083408).
Regarding Claim 1, Ross discloses a system, comprising:
A wellhead monitoring system, comprising:
A processor (Ross: 17) configured to:
Receive from a sensor pack (Ross: 16) a detection of one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) associated with a wellhead disposed within a subsea environment, wherein the sensor pack (Ross: 16) includes sensors attached to at least two of a plurality of components (Ross: along casings 12a-c) of the wellhead, the plurality of components (Ross: along casings 12a-c) selected from the group consisting of a high pressure housing, a low pressure housing, a casing (Ross: 12a-c), the sensor pack (Ross: 16) configured to detect the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) within the subsea environment;
Store the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) in a memory for later retrieval (Ross: Column 5: lines 26 – 53); and
Generate an output based at least in part on the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35), wherein the output comprises an indication of an operational fatigue or an operational health of the wellhead.
Ross also discloses that sensors may be provided in the wellhead apparatus (Ross: Column 3: lines 35-28), but does not disclose their location within the wellhead apparatus, therefore not disclosing wherein at least one of the plurality of components on which the sensor pack is disposed is not a casing.
Ross also does not disclose at least one of the sensors is attached to the wellhead within a protective enclosure prior to submersion into a subsea environment to protect the at least one sensor from adverse environmental conditions in or about a well.
Stephens discloses sensors wherein at least one of the plurality of components on which a sensor pack is attached is not a casing (Stephens: Figure 6: 52 attached to high pressure housing 154 as well as various casings; Column 14: lines 29-41: 52 may be disposed in a machined recess or interface formed in any suitable location).
Stephens also discloses these sensors being attached to the wellhead within a protective enclosure prior to submersion into a subsea environment to protect the at least one sensor from adverse environmental conditions in or about a well (Stephens: Column 12: lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filings to have utilized the sensor placement of Stephens in the invention of Ross with a reasonable expectation of success of determining well integrity parameters of the wellhead assembly as disclosed by Stephens (Column 18: line 55 – Column 19: line 5) It would also have been obvious to utilize the protective enclosure of Stephens in the invention of Ross with the predictable effect of separating the sensor from environmental conditions that would interfere with the operation of the sensor (Stephens: Column 12: lines 46-51).
Ross also does not disclose the processor comprising at least one of an application-specific integrated chip (ASIC), a microcontroller unit (MCU), or a system-on-chip (SoC) configured to process operational and environmental data from a wellhead or oil and gas well environment.
Coles discloses a processor for comprising at least one of an application-specific integrated chip (ASIC), a microcontroller unit (MCU), or a system-on-chip (SoC) configured to process operational and environmental data from a wellhead or oil and gas well environment (Coles: Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized one or more of the processor options of Coles within the invention of Ross with the well known and predictable effect of performing the tasks of calculating and manipulating information delivered from downhole sensors as disclosed by Coles (Coles: Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the processor (Ross: 17) is configured to receive a detection of a cement level parameter, a cement quality parameter, a fluid level parameter, a pressure parameter, temperature parameter, a vibration parameter, a clearance parameter, a flow parameter, a load parameter, a detection of an annulus pressure of the wellhead, an annular temperature of the wellhead (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35: pressure of temperature sensor in annulus would measure pressure or temperature therein), or any combination thereof, as the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 7, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the processor (Ross: 17) is configured to generate the output during a drilling operation (Ross: Column 6: lines 62-65) of the wellhead.
Regarding Claim 8, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the processor (Ross: 17) is configured to generate the output during a production operation (Ross: Column 6: lines 62-65) of the wellhead.
Regarding Claim 9, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the processor (Ross: 17) is configured to store the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) at the wellhead within the subsea environment.
Regarding Claim 10, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the processor (Ross: 17) is configured to transmit the stored detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) to a central control system at an above- sea location.
Regarding Claim 11, Ross discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable code stored thereon, the code comprising instructions to:
Cause a processor (Ross: 17) of a wellhead monitoring system to receive from a sensor pack (Ross: 16) a detection of one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) associated with a wellhead disposed within a subsea environment, wherein the sensor pack (Ross: 16) includes sensors attached to at least two of a plurality of components (Ross: along casings 12a-c) of the wellhead, the plurality of components (Ross: along casings 12a-c) selected from the group consisting of a high pressure housing, a low pressure housing, a casing (Ross: 12a-c), the sensor pack (Ross: 16) configured to detect the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) within the subsea environment; cause the processor (Ross: 17) to store the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) in a memory for later retrieval (Ross: Column 5: lines 26 – 53); and Page 3 of 7 DE - 751777/315787 - 3796310 vlApplication Serial No.: 15/476,197 Atty Docket No.: 751777.315787
Cause the processor (Ross: 17) to generate an output based at least in part on the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35), wherein the output comprises an indication of an operational fatigue or an operational health of the wellhead.
Ross also discloses that sensors may be provided in the wellhead apparatus (Ross: Column 3: lines 35-28), but does not disclose their location within the wellhead apparatus, therefore not disclosing wherein at least one of the plurality of components on which the sensor pack is disposed is not a casing.
Ross also does not disclose at least one of the sensors is attached to the wellhead within a protective enclosure prior to submersion into a subsea environment to protect the at least one sensor from adverse environmental conditions in or about a well.
Stephens discloses sensors wherein at least one of the plurality of components on which a sensor pack is attached is not a casing (Stephens: Figure 6: 52 attached to high pressure housing 154 as well as various casings; Column 14: lines 29-41: 52 may be disposed in a machined recess or interface formed in any suitable location).
Stephens also discloses these sensors being attached to the wellhead within a protective enclosure prior to submersion into a subsea environment to protect the at least one sensor from adverse environmental conditions in or about a well (Stephens: Column 12: lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filings to have utilized the sensor placement of Stephens in the invention of Ross with a reasonable expectation of success of determining well integrity parameters of the wellhead assembly as disclosed by Stephens (Column 18: line 55 – Column 19: line 5). It would also have been obvious to utilize the protective enclosure of Stephens in the invention of Ross with the predictable effect of separating the sensor from environmental conditions that would interfere with the operation of the sensor (Stephens: Column 12: lines 46-51).
Ross also does not disclose the processor comprising at least one of an application-specific integrated chip (ASIC), a microcontroller unit (MCU), or a system-on-chip (SoC) configured to process operational and environmental data from a wellhead or oil and gas well environment.
Coles discloses a processor for comprising at least one of an application-specific integrated chip (ASIC), a microcontroller unit (MCU), or a system-on-chip (SoC) configured to process operational and environmental data from a wellhead or oil and gas well environment (Coles: Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized one or more of the processor options of Coles within the invention of Ross with the well-known and predictable effect of performing the tasks of calculating and manipulating information delivered from downhole sensors as disclosed by Coles (Coles: Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the code comprises instructions to cause the processor (Ross: 17) to generate the output during a drilling operation (Ross: Column 6: lines 62-65) of the wellhead.
Regarding Claim 13, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the code comprises instructions to cause the processor (Ross: 17) to generate the output during a production operation (Ross: Column 6: lines 62-65) of the wellhead.
Regarding Claim 14, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the code comprises instructions to cause the processor (Ross: 17) to store the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) at the wellhead within the subsea environment.
Regarding Claim 15, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the code comprises instructions to cause the processor (Ross: 17) to transmit the stored detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) to a central control system at an above-sea location.
Regarding Claim 16, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the code comprises instructions to cause the central control system to generate an output comprising an indication of the operational fatigue or the operational health of the wellhead (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38).
Regarding Claim 17, Ross discloses a wellhead sensor and monitoring system, comprising:
A pack of subsea sensors attached to at least two of a plurality of components (Ross: along casings 12a-c) of the wellhead, the plurality of components (Ross: along casings 12a-c) selected from the group consisting of a high pressure housing, a low pressure housing, a casing (Ross: 12a-c), the sensor pack (Ross: 16) configured to detect one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) associated with the subsea wellhead while disposed within a subsea environment; and
A subsea wellhead monitoring system coupled to each sensor of the pack of subsea sensors, wherein the subsea wellhead monitoring system is configured to: receive the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35); Page 4 of 7 DE - 751777/315787 - 3796310 vlApplication Serial No.: 15/476,197 Atty Docket No.: 751777.315787
Store the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35) in a memory for later retrieval (Ross: Column 5: lines 26 – 53); and
Generate an output based at least in part on the detection of the one or more operating parameters (Ross: Column 4: lines 19-38; Column 8: lines 30-35), wherein the output comprises an indication of an operational fatigue or an operational health of the subsea wellhead.
Ross also discloses that sensors may be provided in the wellhead apparatus (Ross: Column 3: lines 35-28), but does not disclose their location within the wellhead apparatus, therefore not disclosing wherein at least one of the plurality of components on which the sensor pack is attached is not a casing.
Ross also does not disclose at least one of the sensors is attached to the wellhead within a protective enclosure prior to submersion into a subsea environment to protect the at least one sensor from adverse environmental conditions in or about a well.
Stephens discloses sensors wherein at least one of the plurality of components on which a sensor pack is disposed is not a casing (Stephens: Figure 6: 52 attached to high pressure housing 154 as well as various casings; Column 14: lines 29-41: 52 may be disposed in a machined recess or interface formed in any suitable location).
Stephens also discloses these sensors being attached to the wellhead within a protective enclosure prior to submersion into a subsea environment to protect the at least one sensor from adverse environmental conditions in or about a well (Stephens: Column 12: lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filings to have utilized the sensor placement of Stephens in the invention of Ross with a reasonable expectation of success of determining well integrity parameters of the wellhead assembly as disclosed by Stephens (Column 18: line 55 – Column 19: line 5). It would also have been obvious to utilize the protective enclosure of Stephens in the invention of Ross with the predictable effect of separating the sensor from environmental conditions that would interfere with the operation of the sensor (Stephens: Column 12: lines 46-51).
Ross also does not disclose the processor comprising at least one of an application-specific integrated chip (ASIC), a microcontroller unit (MCU), or a system-on-chip (SoC) configured to process operational and environmental data from a wellhead or oil and gas well environment.
Coles discloses a processor for comprising at least one of an application-specific integrated chip (ASIC), a microcontroller unit (MCU), or a system-on-chip (SoC) configured to process operational and environmental data from a wellhead or oil and gas well environment (Coles: Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized one or more of the processor options of Coles within the invention of Ross with the well-known and predictable effect of performing the tasks of calculating and manipulating information delivered from downhole sensors as disclosed by Coles (Coles: Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the wellhead sensor and monitoring system of claim 17, wherein the pack of subsea sensors are configured to be disposed along a high pressure housing, a low pressure housing, a connector (Applicant’s connector 46 appears to be an additional piece of casing 44), or a combination thereof, of the subsea wellhead.
Regarding Claim 21, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein a predetermined portion of the plurality of components of the wellhead is pre-magnetized in a place where at least one of the sensors is to be attached (Stephens: Column 16: lines 25-49).
Regarding Claim 23, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the sensors is a pressure sensor capable of detecting wellhead stress, and the pressure sensor is attached to a high-stress location of the wellhead (Stephens: Column 6: lines 36-50: piezoelectric sensors, capacitive sensors, strain gauges, load cells; strain/stress would be measured in a place where high strain/stress is a concern, such as on the high pressure wellhead).
Regarding Claim 24, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the wellhead sensor and monitoring system of claim 17, wherein a predetermined portion of the plurality of components of the wellhead is pre-magnetized in a place where at least one of the sensors is to be attached (Stephens: Column 16: lines 25-49).
Regarding Claim 25, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the wellhead sensor and monitoring system of claim 17, wherein at least one of the sensors is a pressure sensor capable of detecting wellhead stress, and the pressure sensor is attached to a high-stress location of the wellhead (Stephens: Column 6: lines 36-50: piezoelectric sensors, capacitive sensors, strain gauges, load cells; strain/stress would be measured in a place where high strain/stress is a concern, such as on the high pressure wellhead).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of Stephens and Coles, further in view of Mason (U.S. Patent No. 8,950,483).
Regarding Claim 5, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the sensors include at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor and a tunnel magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor.
Mason discloses a sensor (59, 61) comprising a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor (Column 5: line 56 – Column 6: line 30) on a wellhead.
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have used a GMR sensor as the sensor unit in the invention of Smedstad in order to monitor a condition of the wellhead.
Regarding Claim 18, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the wellhead sensor and monitoring system of claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the pack of subsea sensors include at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor and a tunnel magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor.
Mason discloses a sensor (59, 61) comprising a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor (Column 5: line 56 – Column 6: line 30) on a wellhead.
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have used a GMR sensor as the sensor unit in the invention of Smedstad in order to monitor a condition of the wellhead.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of Stephens and Coles, further in view of Sippola (U.S. Patent No. 7,451,653).
Regarding Claim 5, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the sensors include at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor and a tunnel magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor.
Sippola discloses a TMR sensor (Column 6: lines 30-45) and discloses that it is well known to use such sensors for within subsea wellheads (Column 1: lines 61-64).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have used a TMR sensor as the sensor unit in the invention of Smedstad in order to monitor a condition of the wellhead.
Regarding Claim 18, Ross, Stephens, and Coles render obvious the wellhead sensor and monitoring system of claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the pack of subsea sensors include at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensor and a tunnel magneto-resistive (TMR) sensor.
Sippola discloses a TMR sensor (Column 6: lines 30-45) and discloses that it is well known to use such sensors for within subsea wellheads (Column 1: lines 61-64).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have used a TMR sensor as the sensor unit in the invention of Smedstad in order to monitor a condition of the wellhead.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, the reply above has been updated to address the additional limitations introduced by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM EST.
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, Nicole A Coy can be reached at (571) - 272 - 5405. 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights