FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action is a Reissue of U.S. Application No. 13/291,985 (the ‘895 application) now U.S. Patent No. 9,207,143 B2 issued on December 8, 2015 to Franklin et al. (the ‘143 patent).
The status of the claims amended on 4/14/2022 is as follows;
Claims 1-5, 7-17 and 19 are pending.
Claims 6 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 7-8, 12 and 15-17 and 19 are amended.
Claims 19 is new and amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-17 and 19 are rejected.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 et seq.
A. Lexicographic Definitions
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner below, the Examiner finds that he is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not their own lexicographer. See MPEP § 2111.01 IV.
B. ‘Sources’ for the 'Broadest Reasonable Interpretation'
For terms not lexicographically defined by Applicant, the Examiner hereby adopts the following interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. In other words, the Examiner has provided the following interpretations simply as express notice of how he is interpreting particular terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Additionally, these interpretations are only a guide to claim terminology since claim terms must be interpreted in context of the surrounding claim language.1 In accordance with In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Examiner points to these other “sources” to support his interpretation of the claims. Finally, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive in any way:
“Processor”
“1: one that processes 2. a: (1) a computer (2) The part of a computer system that operates on data – called also a central processing unit.” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994. 2
“Software”
“n. Computer programs; instructions that make hardware work....” Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 2002.
Configuration “(C) The physical and logical elements of an information processing system, the manner in which they are organized and connected, or both. Note: May refer to a hardware configuration or software configuration.” The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed., IEEE, Inc., New York, NY, 12/2000.
C. 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph
The following is a quotation of pre AIA § 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th Paragraph3:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
A second exception to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard occurs when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph (“§ 112 ¶ 6”). See MPEP § 2181 et seq. To invoke § 112 ¶ 6, a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis (“3 Prong Analysis”) as set forth in MPEP § 2181 I.
Use of the word “means” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation should be interpreted in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under § 112 ¶ 6 is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under § 112 ¶ 6 is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure to perform the entire claimed function.
Claim limitations that use the word “means” are therefore being interpreted under § 112 ¶ 6, except as otherwise indicated below. Conversely, claim limitations that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under § 112 ¶ 6, except as otherwise indicated below.
The following phrases will be first identified and then analyzed using the MPEP’s 3 Prong Analysis to determine if the claimed phrase invoke § 112 ¶ 6. If a phrase invokes § 112 ¶ 6, the corresponding structure for the phrase will also be determined.
Functional Phrase #1 of claim 19
Functional Phrase #1 states:
a software application operating on a specific purpose computer system having an operating program hardwired onto a specific instruction silicon computer chip to display a schematic illustration of said pressure system for the blowout preventer, said schematic illustration including a plurality of fluid control symbols reflective of said fluid control components forming said first fluid pathway and said second fluid pathway;
said software application operating on a specific purpose computer system configured to receive an iterative pressure integrity test plan and said signal reflective of the pressure sensed by said pressure sensor;
said software application operating on said specific purpose computer system configured to monitor a first pathway pressure within said first fluid pathway when pressurized to a first test pressure as part of a first step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan, and to calculate a first test status of said first fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure
within said first fluid pathway during a first period of time, said first test status
being selected from a passing status and a fail status;
said software application operating on said specific purpose computer system configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway and said first test status;
said software application operating on said specific purpose computer system configured to monitor a second pathway pressure within second fluid pathway when pressurized to a second test pressure as part of a second step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan,
and to calculate a second test status of said second fluid pathway from a variance in
the pressure within said second fluid pathway during a second period of time, said
second test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status, and
said software application operating on said specific purpose computer system configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said second fluid pathway and said second test
status and to be operated to display a passing status for said tested fluid control
component with said schematic illustration when at least one of said first test status
and said second test status is a passing status.
….
Functional Phrase #1 (“FP#1”) as recited in Claim 19.
a. Prong (A)
As an initial matter, the Examiner finds that FP#1 does not use the term “means.” Therefore the issue arising under Invocation Prong (A) then becomes whether or not FP#1 is a generic placeholder for “means.”
First, the Examiner has reviewed the specification and concludes that the specification does not provide a description sufficient to inform a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) that the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” denotes sufficient structure (as defined by the Federal Circuit) to perform all the functions within FP#1 without ‘special programming.’4 In other words, the Examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that an ordinary, off-the-shelf processor (or general purpose computer with instructions, memory, CPU, etc.) cannot perform the all the functions within FP#1 without special programming.
Second, the Examiner has reviewed both general dictionaries and subject matter specific dictionaries (e.g., Microsoft Computer Dictionary and the IEEE Dictionary, both cited above in this Office action) for evidence to establish that the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” has achieved recognition as noun denoting sufficient structure to perform the all the functions within FP#1 without special programming. Based upon a review of these dictionaries, the Examiner is unable to locate sufficient evidence that the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” has achieved recognition as a noun denoting sufficient structure for performing the all the functions within FP#1. For example, see the subsection of “Sources” noted above, describing how neither the claimed “instructions” nor an off-the-shelf “processor” can perform the all the claimed functions within FP#1 without special programming.
Third, the Examiner has reviewed the prior art of record for evidence that the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” has sufficient structure to perform all the claimed functions within FP#1 without special programming. Based upon a review of the prior art now of record, the Examiner is unable to locate sufficient evidence to establish that the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” has sufficient structure to perform the all the claimed functions within FP#1 without special programming.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the that the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” as set forth in FP#1 is being used as a generic term for a structure performing all the claimed functions within FP#1, and therefore is a generic placeholder for the phrase “means for.” Because the claimed “instructions … cause the processor” is a generic placeholder having insufficient structure for performing the all the claimed functions within FP#1, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 meets invocation Prong (A).
Based upon a review of the entire Original Disclosure, the Examiner finds that the Original Disclosure merely restates said software application operating on said computer system configured to. See e.g. Abstract, C3:L32-64 and C9:L34-C10:6 in the ‘143 Patent.
b. Prong (B)
In accordance with the MPEP, Invocation Prong (B) requires:
(B) the term ‘means’ … or the generic placeholder is not modified by the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language ….
MPEP § 2181 I. — Invocation Prong (B).
Based upon he claimed language itself, the Examiner finds the function of FP#1 contains (5) functions. The 5 functions within FP#1 are:
configured to receive an iterative pressure integrity test plan and said signal reflective of the pressure sensed by said pressure sensor;
configured to monitor a first pathway pressure within said first fluid pathway when pressurized to a first test pressure as part of a first step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan, and to calculate a first test status of said first fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said first fluid pathway during a first period of time, said first test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status;
configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway and said first test status;
configured to monitor a second pathway pressure within second fluid pathway when pressurized to a second test pressure as part of a second step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan, and to calculate a second test status of said second fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said second fluid pathway during a second period of time, said
second test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status, and
configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said second fluid pathway and said second test status and to be operated to display a passing status for said tested fluid control component with said schematic illustration when at least one of said first test status and said second test status is a passing status.
(“Function of FP#1”) as recited in Claim 1.
Because nothing in the ‘143 Patent or the prosecution history suggests otherwise, the Function of FP#1 will have its ordinary meaning. “Ordinary principles of claim construction govern interpretation of this claim language … and, for all the reasons discussed in the preceding two sections, we construe this function according to its ordinary meaning ….” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(citations omitted). “Ordinary principles of claim construction govern interpretation of the claim language used to describe the function.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(citations omitted).
Nothing in the claim or specification discloses how the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” receive an iterative pressure integrity test plan or update said schematic illustration to reflect said first or second fluid pathway and said first or second test status.
C. FP#1: 3-Prong Analysis Prong (C):
Based upon a review of the FP#1, the Examiner finds that although FP#1 expressly recites “said software application operating on said specific purpose computer system configured to,” the phrase itself (including both “application” and a “computer system,”) does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire Function of FP#1 without the addition of special programming (i.e. algorithm(s)). In fact, the Examiner finds that FP#1 positively recites very little structure other than the claimed “application” and “computer system”
Because the claimed “said software application operating on said specific purpose computer system configured to” does not contain sufficient structure for performing the entire Function of FP#1 without special programming, the Examiner concludes that FP#1 meets invocation Prong (C).
d. Corresponding Structure for FP#1
“The next step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding structure for that function.” In re Aoyama, 656 F3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011) quoting Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Under this second step, structure disclosed in the specification is `corresponding' structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Aoyama, 656 F3d at 1297 (quoting Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, if the claimed phase is meant to ‘cover’ software, “[i]t is well-established that the corresponding structure for a function performed by a software algorithm is the algorithm itself.” EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In other words, “[i]f special programming is required for a general-purpose computer to perform the corresponding claimed function, then the default rule requiring disclosure of an algorithm applies.” Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The corresponding structure as described in the specification off the shelf computer containing a CPU and a Memory running a software application. See e.g. Abstract and C3:L32-64, and C9:L34-C10:L6 in the ‘143.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships remain unclear as to what performs the steps of the claim of sensing, recording, calculating and displaying. One cannot tell if the software application or the computer system is performing the steps of the claim.
Claim 19
Claim 19 limitations;
configured to receive an iterative pressure integrity test plan and said signal reflective of the pressure sensed by said pressure sensor;
configured to monitor a first pathway pressure within said first fluid pathway when pressurized to a first test pressure as part of a first step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan, and to calculate a first test status of said first fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said first fluid pathway during a first period of time, said first test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status;
configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway and said first test status;
configured to monitor a second pathway pressure within second fluid pathway when pressurized to a second test pressure as part of a second step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan, and to calculate a second test status of said second fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said second fluid pathway during a second period of time, said
second test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status, and
configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said second fluid pathway and said second test status and to be operated to display a passing status for said tested fluid control component with said schematic illustration when at least one of said first test status and said second test status is a passing status.
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient structure, such as an algorithm, for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Written description rejection and 35 U.S.C. § 251 new matter rejection
Claims 1, 12 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites the following limitations that use a software application operating on a specific purpose computer but have no teaching or description in the disclosure of how the software using a specific purpose computer or computer system perform the steps of the claim. While a schematic illustration may be interactively shown on a monitor of a computer system the disclosure does not teach how to form or generate a schematic illustration. Accordingly, these phrases contain new matter.
forming, on an output device of a computer system and using a computer program recorded onto a specific instruction silicon chip of a specific purpose computer of software application operating on the computer system, a schematic illustration…..
updating, using the computer program of the specific purpose computer
updating, using the computer program of the specific purpose computer
Claim 12 recites the following limitations that use a software application operating The examiner notes that there is no software application running on a specific purpose computer that updates or generates a schematic illustration. While a schematic illustration may be interactively shown on a monitor of a computer system the disclosure does not teach how to form or generate a schematic illustration. While the results of the test may be known and shown using a pass/fail status there is no software running on a specific purpose computer that calculates the pass/fail status. Accordingly, these phrases contain new matter. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11 and 13-17 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1, 12 and 16 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
generating a schematic illustration of said pressure system for the blowout preventer on an output device of a computer system using a software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration including symbols reflective of each of said plurality of fluid control components and each of said plurality of fluid pathways;
updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway;
calculating with the software application operating on said computer system a first test
status of said first fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said first
fluid pathway [pressure] during said first period of time, said first test status being
selected from a passing status and a fail status;
updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic
illustration to reflect said first test status;
updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic
illustration to reflect said second fluid pathway;
calculating with the software application operating on said computer system a second test
status of said second fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said second
fluid pathway [pressure] during said second period of time, said second test status being
selected from a passing status and a fail status;
updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic
illustration to reflect said second test status;
positioning a third plurality of fluid control components to form a third fluid pathway within said pressure system for the blowout preventer said third fluid pathway being configured to receive said pressurized fluid if said first fluid pathway fails to maintain said first test pressure, and
venting said third fluid pathway to atmosphere.
Claim 16 requires the following;
recording, using the software application operation on said computer system, data reflective of said first pathway pressure with said pressure at time t0 on said computer system;
…
recording, using the software application operation on said computer system, data reflective of said first pathway pressure with said pressure at time t1 on said computer system;
calculating, using the software application operation on said computer system, a leak detection value that is the ratio of said first pathway pressure at time t0 and said first pathway pressure at time t1 subtracted form unity;
generating, using the software application operation on said computer system, a leak detection signal reflective of said leak detection valu; and
displaying, using the software application operation on said computer system, said leak detection value as a function of time on the output device.
Claims 1-5, 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as discussed above
Written description Ariad type rejection
Relevant Case Law
The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Id. at 1353–54 (citation omitted). This requirement “ensures that the public receives a meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing an invention for a period of time.” Id.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. The written description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure; however, “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (citations omitted). The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Id. at 1349. Original claim language does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement for the claimed subject matter. Id.
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 16
Claims 1 and 12 recites a method including, among other limitations, noted above with respect to the claims. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that originally-filed claims 1 recited “forming on an output device of a computer system an illustration” and Claim 12 recited “generating a schematic illustration of said pressure system on an output device of a computer.” Both claims 1 and 12 disclose “updating, using the software application operating on the specific computer system or computer system, said illustration or schematic illustration”. However, amended claims 1 and 12 do not disclose how illustration or the schematic illustration itself is formed on the output device “based on” using a software application operating on a specific purpose computer system or a computer system and as such does not provide the necessary written description support for pending claims 1 and 12. Accord Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (indicating amended claim language does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement for the claimed subject matter).
Applicant’s specification does not describe how to “form or generate or update”. Because of the claimed phrase “form or generate or update” the claimed “illustration or schematic illustration” appears to be an input for an algorithm that achieves “forming or generating or updating” when the algorithm is implemented by a computer, while the disclosure identifies a specific purpose computer C9:L53-C10:L6 and a specific purpose computer C10:L7-17 the specification does not disclose an algorithm for “forming or generating or updating”. Beyond general statements of the function to be performed, which, at most, may render the claimed function obvious, the inventor has not shown how the “forming or generating or updating” recited is performed according to an algorithm,” as recited by claim 1. This disclosure is not sufficient because a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. Furthermore, the second positioning step which positions a third plurality of fluid control components has a conditional statement of “if” said first fluid pathway fails to maintain said first test pressure. The examiner maintains that an algorithm must be provided that performs this function.
Claim 16 requires the following;
recording, using the software application operation on said computer system, data reflective of said first pathway pressure with said pressure at time t0 on said computer system;
…
recording, using the software application operation on said computer system, data reflective of said first pathway pressure with said pressure at time t1 on said computer system;
calculating, using the software application operation on said computer system, a leak detection value that is the ratio of said first pathway pressure at time t0 and said first pathway pressure at time t1 subtracted form unity;
generating, using the software application operation on said computer system, a leak detection signal reflective of said leak detection valu; and
displaying, using the software application operation on said computer system, said leak detection value as a function of time on the output device.
An algorithm is required for each of the above steps of claim 16 because a software application is used to record, generate, calculate and display the information of the claim.
Because Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, does not convey to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 12 and 16 do not have sufficient written description support to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-11 and 13-15, 17 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1, 12 and 16 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-17 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over BOP California (BOPCA) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0185143 A1 (“Winters”) and U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0032550 A1 (“Wodjenski”).
Claim 1
[1.1] (Amended) A method for testing the pressure integrity of a pressure system for a blowout preventer, said pressure system for the blowout preventer having a plurality of fluid control components, a plurality of fluid pathways defined by said fluid control components, and at least one pressure sensor in fluid communication with said plurality of fluid pathways, said method comprising:
BOPCA discloses a method for testing the integrity of a pressure system. It describes itself as “5. INSPECTION AND TESTING PROCEDURES.” BOPC starting at page 68. The manual notes that the division inspector following the manual “must verify that all of the requirements for casing, BOPE (blow out preventer equipment), hole-fluid monitoring equipment, and pressure rating are satisfied.” Id. Section 5-1a. The pressure system has a number of fluid control components, such as valves, pipes, and rams. See, e.g., id. 73, Fig. 27-1 (showing “kill line check valve,” “standpipe valve,” “kill line high pressure access valve,” “standpipe,” “BOPE test plug,” “lowermost ram preventer (pipe)” etc.). The fluid pathways are defined by the fluid control components. By example, fluid pressure can be applied through the kill line, which tests all connections except the annular preventer to the upper ram preventer, shown below. Id. 86.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
465
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
BOPCA Fig 27-2a pp. 74
The pressurized fluid pathway, greyed, is defined by the fluid control components including containing pipes, the BOP stack and closed valves bounding the pressure area (e.g., standpipe valve, kill line high pressure
access valve, choke downstream isolation valve). As the protocol is followed, different fluid pathways are formed. As shown below, the pathway formed differs from the previous example by bounding the pressurized fluid on the kill line (left side) with the kill line check valve.
Pressure sensors are in fluid communication with the fluid pathways. Shown in the figure above are a standpipe pressure gauge, pump pressure gauge, and choke manifold (casing) pressure gauge. Each is positioned to be in fluid communication with certain of the fluid pathways. In the example of figure 27-2b above, the choke manifold (casing) pressure gauge is in fluid communication with the pressurized fluid pathway. The manual describes the expected behavior of the gauge exposed to pressure in a test. This is testing a pressure integrity of a pressure system for a blowout preventer (BOP).
[1.2] forming, on an output device of a computer system a computer program recorded onto a specific instruction silicon chip of a specific purpose computer of the computer system, a schematic illustration representative of said pressure system for the blowout preventer, said schematic illustration including a plurality of fluid control symbols reflective of said plurality of fluid control components, said fluid control symbols reflecting at least one of an operating position and a test status of a fluid control component;
Wodjenski discloses this limitation at Figs. 5, 7-18; ¶0032 (“Fig. 7 is a screen display of the “STATUS SCREEN” for the reduced pressure module of Fig. 1, displaying the status of all valves in the reduced pressure module . . .”); ¶0089 (“The PreChange Leak Test screen shows a schematic depiction of the gas panel, including valve states and pressure transducer pressure level.”); see also id. ¶¶0034-0043, 0082-0099. Two figures showing the schematic illustrations from Wodjenski are shown below.
PNG
media_image5.png
331
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
339
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
328
404
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
326
405
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Wodjenski at Figs. 5, 7. The illustrations are representative of the pressure system formed on an output device of a computer system. Wodjenski at ¶¶0030, 0032, 0055. With respect to the amended language concerning the computer program on a silicon chip a programmable logic controller (PLC) and companion color touch screen are employed. Id. ¶0132. This is a comput6er program on a chip or controller. The schematics include a plurality of fluid control symbols, including triangular symbols for valves, lines representing fluid conduits, and boxes for the left and right cylinders. Id. ¶¶0031, 0082, 0084-0086. Valve status such as operating position is indicated by, e.g., coloring green for open valves and red for closed. Id. ¶0082. With respect to a specific instruction silicone chip of a specific purpose computer Wodjenski discloses in paragraph [0132] “A programmable logic controller (PLC) and companion color touch screen 106 provide preprogrammed functionality and local indication of valve status and system pressures. Surge tank pressure control is achieved through control of the pump speed.” This is a specific purpose computer with a computer program that performs the function forming, monitoring and updating the schematic of Wodjenski that can be applied to the ‘143 patent and is applicable to all of the amended claims relative to “specific purpose computer”.
[1.3] receiving, by the computer program of the specific purpose computer the computer system, a selection of an operating position for a first plurality of fluid control symbols to define a first fluid pathway within said schematic illustration;
Wodjenski discloses this limitation at ¶0100 (teaching the valve icons can be toggled to open or close positions) and ¶0090 (teaching a first fluid pathway from the purge input to the left cylinder by opening automatic valves AV-12 and AV-11).
Wodjenski allows for receiving, by the computer system, a selection of operating position for a first plurality of fluid pathways. Prompting a user to take a step to change a valve position, then the user taking that step, constitutes a selection. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶195-196. Wodjenski teaches the computer prompting the user to lock-out the gas supply vessel and to lock the automatic gas supply vessel valve in the closed position and press enter at ¶0090. Automatic valves AV-11 and AV-12 are manipulated by this action to define a fluid pathway. Other selection of operating positions are taught throughout Wodjenski that selections may be made through the disclosed touch screen that has a touch sensitive grid that corresponds to text and graphics. Id. ¶0055; see also ¶¶0068-0069 (selection examples). In each scenario, at least the triangles valves and lines are symbols defining a fluid pathway in the relevant illustrations.
[1.4] [
[1.5] receiving, by the computer program of the specific purpose computer the computer system, a signal reflective of a pressure sensed by said pressure sensor;
Winters discloses this limitation. Winters teaches producing signals representative of pressure in an isolated portion of a wellbore at ¶0020, and Fig. 12. Pressure is sensed by a pressure sensor and is received by the computer system. Id. Fig. 1 (pressure transducer), id. ¶0023; See also Wodjenski para [0008] where all systems are monitored by a PLC including pressure.
In accordance with yet another aspect of the present invention, an apparatus is provided for testing a blowout preventer. In particular, the apparatus comprises a digital computer that receives a signal that is representative of current pressure within the isolated portion of the throughbore. This is shown in the figure below, with the transmission path shown in dotted line from the pressure transducer to the laptop PC.
PNG
media_image13.png
454
397
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Winters figure 2
The “[p]ump rate, volume pumped, and pump-pressure data are received in approximately 1-second intervals by the computer.” Winters at ¶0044. Pressure is recorded and displayed as shown below in Figure 3.
PNG
media_image14.png
323
509
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Winters Figure 3
[1.6] positioning a first plurality of fluid control components to form said first fluid pathway within said pressure system for the blowout preventer, said first fluid pathway configured to be individually pressurized and including said pressure sensor;
BOP California discloses this limitation at 85, Section 5-3(h) (“[c]lose the kill line control valve” and “[c]lose the standpipe valve”); Fig. 27-4d (showing valve placement for test). The pathway is individually pressurized, and a pressure sensor is included. Id. 93, Fig. 27-4d (hatched area is individually pressurized showing pressure gauges).
BOP California teaches step-by-step changing of valves and pressurizing the resultant fluid pathways. By example, it first tests all connections by seating a BOP plug, opening the casinghead outlet valve, closing CSO rams, closing the standpipe valve, opening the kill-line master valve and the choke-line master valve, closing the choke downstream-isolation valves and the choke manifold blowdown-line control valve (thus positioning the fluid control components to form the fluid pathway), and applying test pressure. Id. 86, Section 5-3b(2)-(9). These components can be connected by rigid conduits (e.g., pipes) and sealed by seal rings. Id. 86, Section 5-3b(9)(b). Pressure is checked at the pressure sensor in communication with the fluid pathway, and BOP California instructs to check for discrepancies between the pressure readings on the different gauges. Id. 75, Section 5-3b(9). The test is illustrated below, where a plurality of fluid control components forms an individually pressurized fluid pathway, with pressure sensors in fluid communication therewith.
PNG
media_image15.png
579
960
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
515
867
media_image16.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 74, Fig. 27-2a. From that position, the manual discloses the method to test components individually, beginning with the kill-line check valve. Id. 75, Section 5-3c. BOP California instructs to bleed off pressure at the pump and check that the check valve has closed, with a corresponding drop in pressure at the gauge behind the check valve (pump pressure gauge), while maintaining pressure at the gauge in fluid communication with this second fluid pathway. Id. 86, Section 5- 3c(2). This is repeated for the other fluid control components. Id. 78-94.
[1.6a] updating, using the computer program of the specific purpose computer illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway;
Wodjenski discloses this limitation. As described above, Wodjenski discloses operating positions for a plurality of fluid control symbols to define a plurality of fluid pathways. This includes a first and a second fluid pathway defined by a first and second plurality of fluid control components. Wodjenski at ¶¶0090, 0093. Included below are the corresponding figures, with the selection of a fluid pathway highlighted in red and the fluid control components positioned to create the fluid pathways circled in blue.
PNG
media_image18.png
515
867
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
294
749
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Wodjenski at Figs. 7, 12; see Ex. 1007 ¶¶202-209.
Wodjenski discloses this limitation at Figs. 5, 7-18; ¶0032 (“Fig. 7 is a screen display of the “STATUS SCREEN” for the reduced pressure module of Fig. 1, displaying the status of all valves in the reduced pressure module . . .”); ¶0089 (“The PreChange Leak Test screen shows a schematic depiction of the gas panel, including valve states and pressure transducer pressure level.”); see also id. ¶¶0034-0043, 0082-0099. Two figures showing the schematic illustrations from Wodjenski are shown above.
[1.7] pressurizing said first fluid pathway to a first test pressure as part of a first test step of an iterative pressure integrity test plan, causing said pressure sensor to generate a signal reflective of a first pathway pressure;
BOP California discloses this limitation. Page 85, Section 5-3(h) (“[c]lose the kill line control valve” and “[c]lose the standpipe valve”); Fig. 27-4d (showing valve placement for test). The pathway is individually pressurized, and a pressure sensor is included. Id. 93, Fig. 27-4d (hatched area is individually pressurized showing pressure gauges).
BOP California teaches step-by-step changing of valves and pressurizing the resultant fluid pathways. By example, it first tests all connections by seating a BOP plug, opening the casinghead outlet valve, closing CSO rams, closing the standpipe valve, opening the kill-line master valve and the choke-line master valve, closing the choke downstream-isolation valves and the choke manifold blowdown-line control valve (thus positioning the fluid control components to form the fluid pathway), and applying test pressure. Id. 75, Section 5-3b(2)-(9). These components can be connected by rigid conduits (e.g., pipes) and sealed by seal rings. Id. 75, Section 5-3b(9)(b). Pressure is checked at the pressure sensor in communication with the fluid pathway, and BOP California instructs to check for discrepancies between the pressure readings on the different gauges. Id. 75, Section 5-3b(9). The test is illustrated below, where a plurality of fluid control components forms an individually pressurized fluid pathway, with pressure sensors in fluid communication therewith.
PNG
media_image20.png
577
960
media_image20.png
Greyscale
BOPCA pp74, Fig 27-2a
From that position, the manual discloses the method to test components individually, beginning with the kill-line check valve. Id. 75, Section 5-3c. BOP California instructs to bleed off pressure at the pump and check that the check valve has closed, with a corresponding drop in pressure at the gauge behind the check valve (pump pressure gauge), while maintaining pressure at the gauge in fluid communication with this second fluid pathway. Id. BOPCA pp 75, Section 5- 3c(2). This is repeated for the other fluid control components. Id. 79-94. BOPCA specifically addresses a control plan in the scope of the invention for use in testing equipment and performing personnel drills. This is an iterative testing plan and procedure that monitors pressure of the tested lines continuously for each claimed fluid pathway. For instance, it teaches that valve positions should be changed between tests, and indicates with headers which component to suspect as failing at each orientation. See, e.g., BOC at 78 (progressing iteratively step by step through valve positions to test the ram preventers, swivel, pipe-ram preventers, among others).
[1.8] receiving, by the computer program of the specific purpose computer the computer system, said signal reflective of said first pathway pressure at time t1 and at time t2;
BOP California and Winters disclose this limitation: BOP California discloses pressurizing the first pathway and Winters discloses that the pressure signal is generated therefrom. BOP California discloses pressurizing to test pressure and producing a reading indicative of the first pathway pressure. See claim limitation 1.5 above. Test pressure is applied. BOPCA at 75, Section 5-3b(9) (“[a]pply test pressure. . .”). Pressure readings are produced.
Winters discloses the sensors producing signals representative of pressure in an isolated portion of a wellbore at ¶0020; Fig. 2 above (pressure transducer) and Winters Fig. 12 (“Signal Representative of Actual Pressure”). Winters also teaches that the signal is received by a computer system at ¶0023. The “[p]ump rate, volume pumped, and pump-pressure data are received in approximately 1-second intervals by the computer.” Winters at ¶0044. Pressure is recorded and displayed as shown below in Figure 9B.
PNG
media_image22.png
294
749
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Winters Fig. 9B
The pressure plotted above is taken over a range of time as shown by the different time on the x-axis and as is clear from the explanation that signals are received in 1-second intervals. The abstract confirms that the pressure is taken at successive time points.
A signal that is representative of the actual pressure in the isolated portion of the throughbore over successive time points and a predetermined non-deterministic finite state automaton are used to predict the pressure in the isolated portion of the throughbore as a function of time relative to a pre-determined acceptable leak rate and the time at which stability is achieved.
Winters at abstract.
[1.9] comparing, by the computer program of the specific purpose computer
Winters disclose the computer system compares pressure at the various times at ¶0023 (utilizing successive pressure measurement to determine regression equation coefficients). A pressure decline is created by a series of pressures over successive measures at successive times. Id.; see also id. at Figure 11B, showing charted pressure decline. Winters discloses that it relies on the equation is
T=
PNG
media_image23.png
64
138
media_image23.png
Greyscale
to determine the time t that the pressure drop per minute is equal to or less than (in absolute value) a particular value. Id. at ¶0046.
PNG
media_image24.png
315
493
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Winters figure 6B
The pressure at a time t is
PNG
media_image25.png
39
141
media_image25.png
Greyscale
see ¶0046 of Winters. The computer calculates a best fit values of A, b, c, and m as more data is received through regression. Id. at ¶0045. The differences in each of the values of P(t) allow for determination of the best fit. The pressure is charted as “incoming” data as in the chart shown, with each successive pressure at tn graphed forming a line in the chart above.
Because rate of decline is key to determining leaks, the first derivative if the pressure/time curve, P’(t) is key.
PNG
media_image26.png
45
133
media_image26.png
Greyscale
id the slope at a time t, and rearranging the terms to solve for t given a desired slope, the equation is t =
PNG
media_image27.png
63
148
media_image27.png
Greyscale
describes in winters at ¶0046. The differences between pressures at successive tn forms a negative slope, providing for a negative P’(t). The computer system calculates the current best fit with the addition of pressure data at next times t. Id. at ¶0048. With the best fit data for A, b, c, and m determined, a series of P’T are determined until they converge (i.e., stabilize). Id. at ¶¶0048-0049. When the differences in pressure at successive tn shows a slope less in absolute value than -3 psi/min drop, the pressure system is considered stable under industry guidelines. Id. The actual pressure is forecasted at this time and compared with the required pressure. Id. If the predicted actual pressure is high enough, “the test is declared successful (positive)” and if the pressure is too low “the test is declared unsuccessful (negative).” Id. at ¶0050. The software produces a yellow light while the software analyzes the data, a green light when the stable solution indicates a high enough pressure, and a red light if the stable solution pressure is too low. Id. at ¶0067-79. Winters displays a “pressure forecast” which is the determination of whether the pressure is above or below the acceptable pressure drop at ¶0081. This pressure forecast is first displayed when a “stable solution” is reached, which Winters explains is the first curve that does not change appreciably as more data is added. Id. at ¶0066. The time for stabilization is calculated, and the pressure at that time is compared with the required pressure for passing. Id. at ¶¶0067-0079. If the pressure at stabilization is above the required pressure, the test is “declared successful (positive).” Id. Otherwise, the test is “declared unsuccessful (negative).” Id. at ¶0050.
[1.10] displaying on the output device said first test status;
Winters indicates whether the test status is pending (analyzing), successful, or unsuccessful. Ex. 1005 at ¶¶0066-0079. It uses a red/green/yellow stoplight-like system. Id. As can be seen below, the light is shown in the upper right side of the display.
PNG
media_image28.png
364
519
media_image28.png
Greyscale
Winters Fig. 10B
A pressure forecast is displayed when the first stable solution is obtained, and the test is interpreted as either positive or negative. The test is positive in this example, so the “light” is green. Id. at ¶0066. The light would be red in the event of a negative test interpretation. Id. Thus, the coloration of the light corresponds with the test states. Positive is green and negative is red.
To the extent this limitation is not literally disclosed, it is an obvious extension. The purpose of the analysis is to “discern if the modeled pressure- decline trend extrapolates to a relatively high pressure (indicative of no leak) or to a relatively low (possibly zero) pressure, which would be indicative of a leak.” Ex. 1005 at ¶0080. A skilled artisan could use this discernment to return and display a conclusion of its indication of “no leak” or “leak.” This is an obvious extension of the present art that would take little to no more analysis or skill than already required, and simply change or add to the present output, a colored light, to a word or similar display of “leak” or “no leak.” It could be based on the same or similar logic that determines the color of the light. The motivation to extend this display can come from a number of sources: ease of use, ease of understanding, multiplicity in display for clarity, multiplicity in display to account for persons who are colorblind, or otherwise. Given that the systems at issue are leak detection systems, it would be obvious to try reporting those particular words to determine the conclusion of whether a leak was detected, or it would have been common sense that such a reported output could be made. There are only a few viable options, and simple logic suggests, that a leak detection system can communicate the detection of a leak by finite number of ways, and none more obvious than a display of the words “leak” and “no leak.” Other options include a visual cue associated with good or bad (such as Winters’ light system) or other words that are associated with a test against a threshold, such as the words “pass” and “fail.” Any one of those options could have equally easily been selected to display.
[1.10a] receiving,by the computer program of the specific purpose computer operating position for a second plurality of fluid control symbols to define a second fluid pathway within said schematic illustration;
Wodjenski discloses this limitation. As described above, Wodjenski discloses operating positions for a plurality of fluid control symbols to define a plurality of fluid pathways. This includes a first and a second fluid pathway defined by a first and second plurality of fluid control components. Wodjenski at ¶¶0090, 0093. Included below are the corresponding figures, with the selection of a fluid pathway highlighted in red and the fluid control components positioned to create the fluid pathways circled in blue.
PNG
media_image18.png
515
867
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
294
749
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Wodjenski at Figs. 7, 12; see Ex. 1007 ¶¶202-209.
Wodjenski discloses this limitation at Figs. 5, 7-18; ¶0032 (“Fig. 7 is a screen display of the “STATUS SCREEN” for the reduced pressure module of Fig. 1, displaying the status of all valves in the reduced pressure module . . .”); ¶0089 (“The Pre Change Leak Test screen shows a schematic depiction of the gas panel, including valve states and pressure transducer pressure level.”); see also id. ¶¶0034-0043, 0082-0099. Two figures showing the schematic illustrations from Wodjenski are shown above.
[1.11] positioning a second plurality of fluid control components to form said second fluid pathway within said pressure system for the blowout preventer, said second fluid pathway configured to be individually pressurized and including said pressure sensor;
The examiner finds that BOP California discloses this limitation. See Limitation 1.7 above and BOPCA at 78, Section 5-3(d)2 (“Open the standpipe valve and close the kill-line control valve.”); see also id. at Figs. 27-3, 27-4a through 4f (showing valve positions).
BOP California discloses creating pathway after pathway to be individually pressurized, including accompanying figures showing the individually pressurized portion in grey hatching as shown below. Note that in each, different areas are shaded grey, indicating their individually pressurized state. Also note that the three gauges in each figure show indications which are in fluid communication with each fluid pathway: gauges with the arrow (needle) pointing to the 2 o’clock position are in fluid communication with the pressurized pathway, those at the 7 o’clock position are not.
PNG
media_image29.png
494
561
media_image29.png
Greyscale
BOPCA Figs. 27-4a, 27-4b, 27-4c, 27-4d.
Each of the pressure pathways was created by positioning a plurality of fluid pressure components, including turning of valves, placement of test plug, including of rigid and flexible conduits. The written instructions accompanying each figure discuss specific positioning of fluid control components compared with the configuration of the previous test and indicate that gauges are in fluid communication with that pressurizable pathway. The fluid control components positioned include: (1) the original setup of the BOP stack, (2) the positioning of the valves to create the original starting position for the test protocol, (3) the individual positioning for each of the prior tests described in the protocol, and (4) the specific positioning to change the previous setup to the setup for the presently identified test. By example only, the bolded the positioning of fluid control components for the presently identified test, and underlined the indications that a gauge is in fluid communication with the pressurized area.
e. Testing the Upper Pipe-ram Preventer and the Standpipe Valve (Figure 27-4a)
1. Close the upper pipe rams using the remote control panel at the driller’s station.
2. Open the kill line control valve.
3. Build test pressure through the drill pipe, observing pressure on the pump pressure gauge, the choke manifold (casing) pressure gauge, and the standpipe (drill pipe) pressure gauge.
4. Close the standpipe valve and bleed the pressure at the pump. This should cause the check valve to close again. The pressure should drop to zero on the pump pressure gauge, but should remain constant at the standpipe pressure gauge and on the choke manifold pressure gauge. If pressure leakage occurs, close the lower Kelly cock. If the pressure drop ceases at the choke manifold pressure gauge, but continues at a faster rate at the standpipe pressure gauge, the problem lies in the standpipe valve. If that situation does not occur, suspect the ram rubbers, the seal rings, or the ram-shaft packing in the upper pipe-ram preventer. Also, there may be concurrent leakage of the standpipe valve and the lower Kelly cock, although this is unlikely.
BOPCA pp 78, section 5-3(e) emphasis by the examiner
Those bolded components are not the only fluid control components positioned for this particular test, of course. As indicated in the previous paragraph, all of the positioning of the fluid control components prior to the particular instructions of Section 5-3(e) from BOP California would fall within this scope of this limitation as well.
The pathways are individually pressurized and a pressure sensor is included in communication with the pathways. BOPCA at 78, Fig. 27-3 (hatched area is individually pressurized; showing pressure gauges). Above it is discussed the BOP California provides for positioning of fluid control components (e.g., valves, BOP rams, conduits) to individually pressure test fluid pathways. See BOPCA at 75- 94 and Figs. 27-1 through 27-6b; see also Limitation 1.6 and 1.7 supra. Each of the relevant fluid pathways include a pressure sensor, namely one or more of the pump pressure gauge, the standpipe valve, and the choke manifold (casing) pressure gauge. See Fig.27-4d below by example showing the gauges in fluid communication with the pressurized pathways.
PNG
media_image30.png
401
506
media_image30.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 82, Fig. 27-4d.
The greyed area above shows the pressurized fluid pathway. As can be seen, the two circled gauges with the arrows at 2 o’clock are in fluid communication with the pressurized pathway. BOP California even makes this apparent in the illustration: where the gauge is in fluid communication with the pressurized pathway, the needle of the gauge is at the 2 o’clock position (mimicking the visual of a high pressure read on a typical commercially available pressure sensor), while gauges that are not in fluid communication with the pressurized pathway, circled have a needle in the 7 o’clock position (mimicking an atmospheric pressure read).
[1.11a] updating, the computer program of the specific purpose computer
See The limitation 1.6a and 1.9 above that applies equally to the second fluid pathway as described above and the updating of the schematic illustration to reflect the pathways and the outputs of the fluid control components. Winters updates the schematic illustration to reflect all of the components that may be used in the testing.
[1.12] pressurizing said second fluid pathway to a second test pressure as part of a second test step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan, causing said pressure sensor to generate a signal reflective of a second pathway pressure;
The examiner finds that BOPCA in combination with Winters discloses this limitation. BOPCA discloses testing the second fluid pathway by pressurizing to a second test pressure. Winters discloses this limitation to the extent that the limitation requires the sensor to “generate a signal reflective” of the pressure.
BOP California discloses pressurizing the multiple pressure pathways as disclosed above with respect to Limitation 1.7. There, it is discussed that BOP California discloses forming a plurality of fluid pathways, each one pressurized, and each one having a pressure sensor in fluid communication therewith. Each of the many fluid pathways are individually pressurized. See also Limitation 1.11 above. There, the included information related to four different of the fluid pathways that are individually formed and individually pressurized. Below there are four different pathways.
PNG
media_image31.png
519
585
media_image31.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at Fig. 27-4a, 27-4b, 27-4c, 27-4d.
As can be seen, the greyed area indicates individually pressurized areas, and each have at least one pressure gauge in fluid communication with the pressurized area.
Winters discloses that the pressure sensors generate a signal reflective of the pressure to be transmitted. The sensors comprise electronic signal transmission capability of pressure measurements. The abstract notes these signals are generated reflective of pressure within an isolated area in the throughbore in the abstract and Winters Fig. 12 discloses that the signals are reflective of pressures within the pressure pathways.
[1.13] receiving, by the computer program of the specific purpose computer
The examiner finds that BOPCA and winters teach this limitation. Please see and incorporate herein the explanation for claim 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12 described above. BOPCA discloses pressurizing the second pathway above with respect to limitation 1.12 and Winters discloses that the pressure signal is sensed by a transduces and is received by the computer as disclosed above with respect to figure 2 and ¶¶0100-0102.
Winters also discloses that the “[p]ump rate, volume pumped, and pump-pressure data are received in approximately 1-second intervals by the computer.” at ¶0044. Pressure is recorded and displayed as shown below in Figure 9B.
PNG
media_image32.png
307
369
media_image32.png
Greyscale
Winters at Fig. 9B.
The pressure plotted above is taken over a range of time as shown by the different time on the x-axis and as is clear from the explanation that signals are received in 1-second intervals. The abstract confirms that the pressure is taken at successive time points.
A signal that is representative of the actual pressure in the isolated portion of the throughbore over successive time points and a pre-determined non-deterministic finite state automaton are used to predict the pressure in the isolated portion of the throughbore as a function of time relative to a pre-determined acceptable leak rate and the time at which stability is achieved.
Winters abstract.
The various times within intervals can be assigned t3 and t4. T3 and t4 are arbitrary time points. Given the context of the claim and my knowledge of pressure testing, they are two different time points to ultimately use to determine the trend in pressure readings. Some measurements are shown in Fig 9B above. In the above chart, we see time as the x-axis, showing readings at 22:15:00 to 22:40:00 (hours, minutes, seconds). The line above the time represents a number of corresponding points for pressure at the given times.
According to Winters, these pressure readings indicated in the chart are a series of pressures taken in 1-second intervals at ¶0044. Twenty-five minutes of data – the extent of the axis – supports 1500 data points. Any of those data points can arbitrarily be assigned t3 and t4. The computer system receives data (id. at ¶0023 and claim 22), and the data is parsed to create the above displayed chart.
To the extent t3 and t4 must come after t1 and t2, the limitation could be taught based on the successive tests taught by BOP California and utilized by Winters, or within a single time period of Winters, assigning the first two of any of four arbitrary times as t1 and t2 and the second two as t3 and t4.
[1.14] comparing, by the computer program of the specific purpose computer
The examiner finds that BOPCA in view of Winters teaches this claim limitation. The explanation discussed in 1.13 above is incorporated herein. As disclosed above BOPCA teaches a second pathway is created pressurized and may be tested. Winters teaches in the sections above how the pathway pressures at different times may be calculated based on a difference is pathway pressure over time as shown in Winters figure 9B reproduced above.
The test status is calculated based on the above equations noted in the different incorporated claim sections above. Winters displays a “pressure forecast” which is the determination of whether the pressure is above or below the acceptable pressure drop at ¶0081.
FIGS. 10A and 10B show digital BOP testing software results. A pressure forecast is displayed and the test data are interpreted once a stable solution is obtained (FIG. 10A). A stable solution was obtained 15.9 min post shut-in, and P.sub.s predicted was 9,629 psi occurring at clock time 23:19:38. The test continued to a pressure decline rate of -3 psi/min from which P.sub.s actual was 9,661 psi occurring at 23:13:12. The -32 psi difference between P.sub.s predicted and P.sub.s actual is a forecasting error of -0.33%. Digital BOP testing software correctly interpreted the test as positive, but did so 51 minutes ahead of the chart recorder result. In FIG. 10B the test remained shut-in following the initial pressure forecast, and additional pressure data is displayed to show the accuracy of the forecast. The Eq. (1) values of the pressure forecast are: A=8,906.5; b=2.887E+5; c=2.246E+2; and m=0.623.
Winters at ¶0081
This pressure forecast is first displayed when a “stable solution” is reached, which Winters explains is the first curve that does not change appreciably as more data is added. Id. at ¶0066. The time for stabilization is calculated, and the pressure at that time is compared with the required pressure for passing. Id. at ¶¶0067-0079. If the pressure at stabilization is above the required pressure, the test is “declared successful (positive).” Id. Otherwise, the test is “declared unsuccessful (negative).” Id. at ¶0050. This comparison between Ps (calculated based on the best fit discussion above) and Preq is a calculation based on the difference in pressure at different times. Accordingly, the examiner finds that BOPCA in view of Winters teach this limitation.
[1.15] displaying on the output device said second test status;
The examiner finds that BOPCA and Winters teach this limitation. BOP California teaches that a second pathway is pressurized and measured, see Limitation 1.12 above, and Winters teaches the output is displayed see Limitation 1.10 above which are relevant and incorporated herein. As discussed, BOPCA discloses testing multiple pressure pathways at Fig. 27-4a, 27-4b, 27-4c, 27-4d. When so tested, Winters discloses this limitation by display of the output at ¶¶0066-0079.
[1.16] positioning a third plurality of fluid control components to form a third fluid pathway within said pressure system for the blowout preventer, said third fluid pathway being configured to receive said pressurized fluid if said first fluid pathway fails to maintain said first test pressure; and
BOP California discloses this limitation. BOP California discloses a number of third plurality of fluid control components that form third fluid pathways behind a first fluid pathway. For example, in the figure below, multiple such pathways venting to atmosphere (arrows).
PNG
media_image33.png
364
655
media_image33.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 84, Fig. 27-4f (left).
In each of the fluid pathways, the fluid control components are positioned to receive and transmit the high pressure. In each case, the arrow begins at a fluid control component (valve) that is under pressure, indicated by the grey hashing. In the event of failure of that fluid control component, a plurality of fluid control components are positioned to receive the pressure. For instance, with respect to the two choke manifold outboard wing valves (labeled A and B above), the fluid control components of the conduit (choke) and the valves outside of the pressurized area (choke downstream isolation valves) receive the pressurized fluid. In the case of failure of the standpipe, the fluid control components include the standpipe, the kill like check valve, and the kill line high pressure access valve.
A third fluid pathway comprising a plurality of fluid control components is shown throughout BOP California, by example with respect to Figure 27-6b, shown below.
PNG
media_image34.png
311
565
media_image34.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 93, Fig. 27-6b.
Here, the three valves on the choke line each are positioned with a separate third plurality of fluid control components forming fluid pathways beyond the pressurized fluid pathway. In the event of failure of either of the choke manifold inboard wing valves, the choke manifold outboard wing valves, the conduit, and the choke downstream isolation valves are positioned to receive the fluid flow. With respect to the choke manifold blowdown line master valve, the conduit and choke manifold blowdown line control valve are positioned to receive the fluid flow.
[1.17] venting said third fluid pathway to atmosphere.
BOP California discloses this limitation. Throughout the disclosure, various instructions indicate the test should be bled until the gauge read “zero,” i.e., atmospheric pressure. For example, with respect to the test of the kill-line check valve, Figure 27-2b, BOP California instructs to “[b]leed off the pressure rapidly at the mud pump,” which closes the check valve. Ex. 1003 at 86. The accompanying figure, shown below, indicates atmospheric pressure.
PNG
media_image35.png
400
243
media_image35.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 75, Fig. 27-2b.
The pressure at the pressure gauge (circled blue) reads “zero,” i.e., atmospheric, and the third fluid pathway indicated in blue is vented to the atmosphere behind the closed kill line check valve under test in the first fluid pathway.
The same is true with respect to the test of the upper pipe-ram preventer and the standpipe valve, as shown in Figure 27-4a, see BOPCA at 78, Section 5-3e(4) (instructing to bleed pressure to zero at the pressure pump gauge), and upper Kelly cock shown in Figure 27-4b, see id. 78, Section 5-3(f)(2) (instructing to open the standpipe valve which drops the standpipe pressure gauge to zero). In each case, the fluid control components (e.g., valves, conduits, flexible rotary hose, fittings) beyond the pressure-tested component, where the pressure reads zero, comprise a pathway configured to receive the pressurized fluid and vent to atmosphere. See, e.g., id. 78, Section 5-3f(2). This is shown by example below, the pressure at the standpipe valve is zero and the indicated area in blue is at atmospheric pressure.
PNG
media_image36.png
398
363
media_image36.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 80, Fig. 27-4b.
Finally, the tests conclude with the instruction to bleed pressure through the choke manifold blowdown line master valve to return the blowout preventer to its operating position. BOPCA at 94, Section 5-3o(9). This results in a final vent to atmosphere, shown below.
PNG
media_image37.png
319
210
media_image37.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 93, Fig. 27-6b.
That fluid pathway is a “third fluid pathway” comprising a plurality of fluid control components.
BOPCA details appropriate steps to be taken to pressure test BOPs and their various components within, both for surface and subsea production. BOP California is a step-by-step testing manual, showing appropriate valve and pressure gauge placements, detailing pressures to be used and components to test, and instructing how to insert and bleed pressure. For instance, it shows a typical blow out preventer arrangement with the various components
Wodjenski discloses a schematic of a tested pressure system with symbols for fluid control components. Included are thirteen figures and accompanying descriptions of displays representative of the pressure system, including fluid control components (e.g., valves, conduits) and their operating positions.
Winters entitled “Blowout Preventer Testing System and Method,” discloses a digital analytical method for predicting when pressure decrease reaches a particular value in a test using early data input of pressures.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine BOPCA and Winters in that the references are both related to blow out preventers and the testing thereof. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine BOPCA with Winters and Wodjenski since Wodjenski is analogous art for combination with the BOP references since all of the references used in the rejection relate to monitoring, recording, and altering systems containing high pressure fluids within a multi-valve, multi route pressure system which is reasonably pertinent to the problem associated with BOP testing.
2. (Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein said first plurality of fluid control components and said second plurality of fluid control components share at least one common fluid control component with a corresponding common fluid control symbol in said schematic illustration.
BOP California and Wodjenski disclose this limitation. BOP California discloses common fluid control component between the fluid pathways and Wodjenski discloses the common symbols in the illustration. Two pathways are disclosed. Sere BOPCA at 77, 82, and Figs. 27-3 and 27-4d. The first fluid pathway (shown in 27-3) shares common fluid control components with the second fluid control pathway (shown in 27-4d) including, e.g., Kill Line Control Valve, Standpipe Valve, Lowermost Ram Preventer. This includes fluid control components completely within both fluid pathways, e.g., the upper Kelly cock, those that bound one fluid pathway and not the other (e.g., the standpipe valve), and those that bound both fluid pathways (e.g., the rotary hose and the test plug). The two figures are shown below.
PNG
media_image38.png
285
668
media_image38.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at 77, 82, and Figs. 27-3 and 27-4d.
Fluid control symbols corresponding to fluid control components are disclosed in Wodjenski, such as valve symbols and conduit symbols as discussed in limitations 1.2-1.4 above.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising operating said computer program of the specific purpose computer
BOP California, Wodjenski, and Winters teach this limitation. BOP California teaches testing a common fluid control component, Winters teaches indicating the passing status of the test, and Wodjenski teaches reflecting the status of the fluid control component on the fluid control symbol. In BOP California, common fluid control components are tested throughout the protocol see claim 2 above. Winters discloses its yellow/green/red light method of presenting the status of a test whether the test status is pending (analyzing), successful, or unsuccessful. See Winters at ¶¶0065-0079; Fig. 9B, 10A, 10B (yellow, green, and red lights). Wodjenski discloses presenting such status on the fluid control symbol at ¶0135 (indication “visually perceptible as to state” is displayed on all valves in the schematic illustration) and ¶0090 (screen with schematic changes upon successful test); see also Fig. 21 where the valves are color coded based on their state. Id. at ¶0135. Wodjenski discloses that alarms can be triggered in the event of insufficient pressure integrity indicating a valve is in a leaking state at ¶0087 (alarms for insufficient vacuum/pressure); id. at ¶0089 (leak test includes schematic with valve states); id. at ¶¶0101, 0104, 0106, 0108, 0109 (discussing operating parameters for minimum pressure).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said second fluid pathway is contained entirely within said first fluid pathway.
BOP California discloses this limitation. By example, the fluid pathway of Figure 27-2b is entirely within the fluid pathway of Figure 27-2a. BOPCA at 74, 76; see also id. 80, 81, Figs. 27-4c and 27-4b; id. 82, 83, Figs. 27-4f and 27-4e.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein said second fluid pathway includes at least one fluid control component not included within said first fluid pathway.
BOP California discloses this limitation. In consecutive tests 27-4k and 27- 5, fluid control components in the second fluid pathway but not the first include those components outside the choke line master valve extending to the choke inboard wing valves, e.g., choke line control valve, targeted tee, rigid conduit, choke manifold inboard wing valves, and connections and fittings between each. BOPCA at 90 and 91.
7. (Amended) The method of claim 1 [claim 6], wherein said blowout preventer is selected from the group consisting of a test ram BOP, a blind ram BOP, a shear ram BOP, a pipe ram BOP, a variable pipe ram BOP, and an annular BOP.
BOP California discloses this limitation. Its tests include lowermost and upper pipe-ram preventer and the annular preventers. BOPCA at 78, Sections 5- 3d, e, and m.
8. (Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of said plurality of fluid control components is selected from the group consisting of a rigid tubular conduit, a flexible tubular conduit, a valve, a fitting, [and] a fluid-tight seal, a pressure source, and a bleed port.
BOP California discloses this. See Limitations 1.6 and 1.11 supra, discussing valves, conduit, seal rings, and fluid-tight BOP test plug. These elements are involved in each of the first and second fluid pathways. See also BOPCA at Fig. 27-4b. These components define pressurized fluid pathways in, for instance, Figure 27-3 (the rigid standpipe and kill line high pressure access valve) and Figure 27-5 (flexible tubular conduit rotary hose and plug).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of said plurality of fluid control components is a valve having a first side and a second side opposite said first side.
BOPCA discloses this limitation. The standpipe valve has a first side and a second side, its top and bottom on the figure. BOPCA at 81-82, Figs. 27-4c, 27-4d.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein:
causing said first fluid pathway to be pressurized applies said first pathway pressure to said first side of said valve; and
causing said second fluid pathway to be pressurized applies said second pathway pressure to said second side of said valve.
BOP California discloses this. In Figure 27-4c, the bottom side of the standpipe valve is pressurized. BOPCA at 81, Fig. 27-4c. In Figure 27-4d, the top side opposite the bottom side is pressurized. Id. 82, Fig. 27-4d. Either fluid pathway could be the first fluid pathway. For each pathway, third fluid pathways including the vent to atmosphere comprise the choke downstream inclusion valves and choke manifold blowdown line control valve and fittings. With the case of Figure 27-4d, the standpipe, kill line check valve, and kill line high pressure valve comprise an additional candidate third fluid pathway. With the case of Figure 27- 4c, the kill line high pressure access valve comprises an additional candidate third fluid pathway.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating a first test status of said first fluid pathway from a difference in said first pathway pressure from time t1 to time t2 further comprises:
calculating a leak detection value that is the absolute value of a ratio of said pressure at time t1 and said pressure at time t2 subtracted from unity;
comparing said leak detection value against a leak threshold; and
recording said first test status as a passing status when said leak detection value meets said leak threshold.
The expression in the limitation is 1-P1/P2, which is simply the ratio of pressures at different times, manipulated to generate a different number. This mathematics is the ordinary method conducted with circle charts as described in Winters figure 1 and ¶3-4. With circle charts, pressure is observed over time to determine if it is steady-state or dropping at an acceptable rate. In terms of the expression of the limitation, pressure trends observed over time is the difference or ratio between P2 and P1, the fundamental part of the described equation. Comparing that value to an acceptable drop rate is using a threshold. If the drop rate is greater than the acceptable drop rate, the tests status is passed. Winters discloses in ¶66-81 and Figures 10A and 10B monitoring the pressure over time and comparing it with a threshold to determine if the test has passed or failed. This is admitted prior art in the ’143 patent at 2:38-49 and disclosed in Winters. Therefore, Winters discloses observing the pressure drop rate over time and comparing it to a threshold.
Claim 12
12.1 (Amended) A method for testing the pressure integrity of a pressure system for a blowout preventer, said pressure system for the blowout preventer having a plurality of fluid control components configured to be operated to define a plurality of fluid pathways, and at least one pressure sensor in fluid communication with said plurality of fluid pathways, said method comprising:
See the rejection above for limitation 1.1 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.2 generating a schematic illustration of said pressure system for the blowout preventer on an output device of a computer system using a software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration including symbols reflective of each of said plurality of fluid control components and each of said plurality of fluid pathways;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.2 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.3 receiving, by the software application operating on the computer system, an iterative pressure integrity test plan and a signal reflective of a pressure sensed by said pressure sensor;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.5 and 1.7 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.4 positioning a first plurality of fluid control components to form a first fluid pathway, said first fluid pathway configured to be individually pressurized and including said pressure sensor;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.6 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.4a updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.6a which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.5 pressurizing said first fluid pathway to a first test pressure as part of a first test step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.7 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.6 monitoring with the software application operating on said computer system a first pathway pressure for a first period of time;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.8 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.7 calculating with the software application operating on said computer system a first test status of said first fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said first fluid pathway [pressure] during said first period of time, said first test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.9 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.7a updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration to reflect said first test status;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.6a which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.8 positioning a second plurality of fluid control components to form a second fluid pathway, said second fluid pathway configured to be individually pressurized and including said pressure sensor and at least one tested fluid control component in common with said first fluid pathway;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.11 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.8a updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration to reflect said second fluid pathway;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.6a which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.9 pressurizing said second fluid pathway to a second test pressure as part of a second test step of said iterative pressure integrity test plan;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.12 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.10 monitoring with the software application operating on said computer system a second pathway pressure for a second period of time;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.13 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.11 calculating with the software application operating on said computer system a second test status of said second fluid pathway from a variance in the pressure within said second fluid pathway [pressure] during said second period of time, said second test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.14 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.11a updating, using the software application operating on the computer system, said schematic illustration to reflect said second test status;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.6a which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.12 displaying on the output device using the software application operating on the computer system a passing status for said tested fluid control component when at least one of said first test status and said second test status is a passing status;
See the rejection above for claim 3 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
12.13 positioning a third plurality of fluid control components to form a third fluid pathway within said pressure system for the blowout preventer, said third fluid pathway being configured to receive said pressurized fluid if said first fluid pathway fails to maintain said first test pressure; and
See the rejection above for limitation 1.16 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
Additionally, BOPCA discloses that each of the first fluid pathways provided in Figures 27-6a and 27-5, below, the third fluid pathway includes each of the fluid pathways beyond the choke manifold inboard wing valves and the fluid pathway beyond the choke manifold blowdown master line.
PNG
media_image39.png
276
619
media_image39.png
Greyscale
BOPCA at Figs. 27-6a and 27-5
12.14 venting said third fluid pathway to atmosphere.
See the rejection above for limitation 1.17 and 12.13 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein said second fluid pathway is contained entirely within said first fluid pathway.
See the rejection above for claim 4 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein said second fluid pathway includes at least one fluid control component not included within said first fluid pathway.
See the rejection above for claim 5 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
15. (Amended) The method of claim 12, wherein said [tested fluid control component is a] blowout preventer (BOP) is selected from the group consisting of a test ram BOP, a blind ram BOP, a shear ram BOP, a pipe ram BOP, a variable pipe ram BOP, and an annular BOP.
See the rejection above for claim 7 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
16. (Amended) The method of claim 12, wherein monitoring with the software application operating on said computer system said first pathway pressure for a first period of time comprises:
16.1 sensing said first pathway pressure with said pressure sensor at time to;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.7 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
16.2 recording using the software application operating on said computer system data reflective of said first pathway pressure at time to on said computer system;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.8 which applies to the instant claim limitation. Time t0 is an unspecified time. The data is digitally recorded in Winters, which could be at any time. To the extent recording at t0 refers to a specific time, such as time prior to testing, Winters discloses this. For instance, in Figure 3, measurements are taken before testing begins, such as at 18:00 to about 18:45. Winters at Figure 3.
16.3 sensing said first pathway pressure with said pressure sensor at time t1;
See the rejection above for limitation 16.2 which applies to the instant claim limitation. T1 is an unspecified time.
16.4 recording using the software application operating on said computer system data reflective of said first pathway pressure at time t1 on said computer system;
See the rejection above for limitation 1.8 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
16.5 calculating using the software application operating on said computer system a leak detection value that is the ratio of said first pathway pressure at time t0 and said first pathway pressure at time ti subtracted from unity;
See the rejection above for claim 11 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
16.6 generating using the software application operating on said computer system a leak detection signal reflective of said leak detection value; and
See the rejection above for claim 11 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
16.7 displaying using the software application operating on said computer system said leak detection value as a function of time on the output device.
See the rejection above for limitation 1.9 and claim 11 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
17. (Amended) The method of claim 12, further comprising:
17.1 pressurizing said first fluid pathway to a first reduced pathway pressure prior to said first period of time [, said first reduced pathway pressure being less than one fifth of said first pathway pressure]; [and]
BOPCA discloses that low pressure tests are at 200 psi and high pressure tests and high pressure tests must be to 70 percent of the working pressure. BOPCA at 95, Section 5-4b. Working pressures of annular preventers are most commonly 3,000 - 5000 psi, and range up to 15,000 psi. Id. at Appendix B, p. 100. Working pressure of ram type preventers is similar. Seventy percent of that range is 2,100 psi to 3,500 psi. The 200 psi low pressure test is less than one fifth the entire range. These components are tested in, e.g., the tests disclosed in Figures 27-6 and 27-6a. BOPCA at 91-92. The low pressure test precedes the high pressure test. Id. at 93 (low pressure test, “and to 70 percent of the rated working pressure . . . [and s]ubsequent pressure tests may be limited to 70 percent of the minimal internal yield strength of the upper part of the casing.”).
17.2 monitoring with said computer system said first pathway pressure for said additional period of time; and
See the rejection above for limitations 12.6 and 12.10 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
17.3 calculating with said computer system a first reduced pressure test status of said first fluid pathway from a variance in the reduced pressure within said first fluid [reduced] pathway [pressure] during said first period of time, said first reduced pressure test status being selected from a passing status and a fail status.
See the rejection above for limitation 12.7 which applies to the instant claim limitation.
With respect to claim 19 please see the relevant portions of claims 1 through 17 where the combination of references teaches the limitations of claim 19 and are incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/22/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objection to claim 19 as not being underlined is withdrawn since claim 19 is currently underlined.
The 35 U.S.C. 251 rejection with respect to the declaration is withdrawn based on the new declaration submitted with the response.
The 35 U.S.C. §112(1st ¶) Ariad type rejection is maintained. The applicant’s representative amended claims 1 and 12 to have “ a computer program recorded onto a specific instruction silicon chip of a specific purpose computer”. The examiner maintains that just because a specific purpose computer is claimed does not provide and exemption that obviates the description and location the specific algorithm used to perform the steps of the claims. Accordingly, this rejection is maintained. The amendments to the claim 16 makes it clear that the software application operating on the computer system performs the “steps” of claim 16 however there is no algorithm associated with these steps and the claim is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(1st ¶) .
The 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and 35 U.S.C. §112(2nd ¶) claim interpretation and rejections have not been overcome.
With respect to the amendments to claim 19 “a specific purpose computer having an operating system hardwired onto a specific silicon computer chip” does not show all the necessary algorithms for performing the claimed function. The applicant’s representative argues on page 13-16 of the 8/22/2024 remarks that “it is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to know how to have software on a computer receive data --- no special algorithm is needed.” The examiner agrees and the test plan and signals generated and monitored in BOPCA meet this limitation as well as the teachings of Wodjenski and Winters. The examiner maintains that nothing in the claim or specification discloses how the claimed “said software application operating on said computer system configured to” receive an iterative pressure integrity test plan or update said schematic illustration to reflect said first or second fluid pathway and said first or second test status. In fact, the specification states that the plan steps in the test plan will provide coverage for every desirable combination of fluid control components (‘143 C25L22-42). Accordingly, there is no algorithm for the above claim elements. With respect to “monitoring” the examiner agrees that a software application operating on a computer system can monitor system signal information such as pressure, temperature and valve position without a specific algorithm.
The applicant’s representative argues on page 14 of the 8/22/2024 remarks that “ configured …. to calculate a first test status of said first fluid pathway…. having an operating program hardwired onto a specific instruction silicon computer chip..” is supported in the ‘143 patent in various places. The examiner agrees that the citations provided describes the algorithms for calculating test status using pressure variance.
The applicant’s representative argues on page 14 of the 8/22/2024 remarks that “configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway and said test status”…. No special algorithm is needed to display an illustration in a computer system.” The examiner does not agree that displaying a diagram and updating it does not require an algorithm. The examiner finds that at a person of ordinary skill in this particular art (“PHOSITA”) and based upon a review of the entire Original Disclosure and the prior art of record, the claimed function (“configured to update said schematic illustration to reflect said first fluid pathway and said test status”) requires “special programming.” Because the algorithm for this function is not sufficiently disclosed, the examiner maintains the § 112 ¶ 2 rejection.
The applicant’s representative argues on page 15 of the 8/22/2024 remarks that “configured to monitor a second pathway…” “ It is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to know how to have software on a computer monitor or receive data – no special algorithm is needed.” The examiner agrees that monitoring pressure and other parameters by a computer is known and no algorithm is needed.
The applicant’s representative argues on page 15 of the 8/22/2024 remarks that “configured to calculate a second test status ….being selected from a passing status and a fail status” and describes the test status using pressure variance as described in various portions of the ‘143 specification as the algorithm. The examiner agrees that the various portions of the specification citations provided describes the algorithms for calculating test status using pressure variance.
The 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) Claim interpretation section is maintained and 35 U.S.C. §112 (2nd ¶) rejection associated with the claim interpretation section is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection is maintained as explained above. The applicant’s representative argues that the “forming” and “generating” and “updating” steps are related to the schematic illustration are portions of an overall iterative testing method but does not describe the specific algorithm that performs the steps on the specific purpose computer or computer system as claimed. Furthermore, the “forming” and “generating” and “updating” steps are not linked to the iterative pressure integrity test plan in the claim even though they may be limitations in the claim. BOPCA does disclose monitoring the pressures of element of the specific line test as taught above. The teachings of Wodjenski discloses of “a schematic of a tested pressure system with symbols for fluid control components.” Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art:
(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
problem addressed; and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference is still “reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Bigio, 381 F.3d
at 1325.
Wodjenski is analogous art for combination with references in the blowout preventer art because both involve monitoring, recording, and alerting systems containing high pressure fluids within a multi-valve, multi-route pressure system comprising interconnected conduits. Wodjenski is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved under the second prong of the analogous-art test. Among the problems the ’143 patent sought to solve with use of its schematic display was to simplify creation of test plans to ‘ensure coverage of every desirable combination of fluid control components.’” (‘143 25:22–39). Noting that BOP California “likewise describes a test protocol to ensure coverage of every desirable combination of fluid control components,”. The examiner observes that “Wodjenski is similar” because “its disclosed steps allow for an orderly ‘preprogrammed sequence’ for the various complex routing operations in the pressure system (Wodjenski ¶ 8).
The applicant’s representative further argues that “The combination of BOPCA, Winters, and Wodjenski simply does not teach that the schematic illustration as described by the ‘143 patent is a tool used in an iterative testing method that allows a user to organize each plan step in a test plan. Iterative test steps and iterative versions of the schematic illustrations to achieve an overall testing method takes coordination that is not taught by this prior art combination.” 8/22/2024 remarks pp 18. The examiner notes that iterative versions of the schematic illustration used as a testing method to organize each plan step in a test plan is not claimed. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JOHN M HOTALING II whose telephone number is (571)272-4437. The examiner can normally be reached 730-4 Monday -Friday.
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, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571 272 6779. 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.
/JOHN M HOTALING II/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/C. Michelle Tarae/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 While most interpretations are cited because these terms are found in the claims, the Examiner may have provided additional interpretations to help interpret words, phrases, or concepts found in the interpretations themselves, the xxdx Patent, or in the prior art.
2 Based upon the Original Disclosure, the art of record, and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in this art as determined by the factors discussed in MPEP §2141.03 (where practical), the Examiner finds that the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary is an appropriate technical dictionary known to be used by one of ordinary skill in this art. See e.g. Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) where the Federal Circuit used the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3d ed.) as “a technical dictionary” to define the term “flag.” See also In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588 (CCPA 1971)(noting that its appropriate to use technical dictionaries in order to ascertain the meaning of a term of art) and MPEP §2173.05(a) titled “New Terminology.”
3 “Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with newly designated § 112(f) when § 4(c) of the America Invents Act (AIA ), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on September 16, 2012. Because the applications resulting in the patents at issue in this case were filed before that date, we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.” Mobile Media Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1168 n3 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
4 “[A]s originally described in Katz, ‘special programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer.” EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Prosecution Insights