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 compu