DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-41 are presented for examination. This office action is response to the submission on 10/7/2025. Claim 25 is amended. Claims 36-41 are new.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of applicant response filed 10/7/2025, with respect to claims 12-22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues in Section I.A. that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to a tangible, physical improvement to subsea BOP technology that results in a safer and more effective industrial machine.”, that the examiner failed to explain how a subsea BOP could be considered abstract, that examiner failed to examine the claim together as a whole, and that the claims including a plurality of groups of sensors is a physical arrangement that is integral to the machine, and provides a specific improvement to an existing technology.
Examiner disagrees. As explained in previous office action filed 5/7/2025, the monitoring system is merely linked to the concept of the subsea BOP. The claims as recited merely state that the monitoring system is for a subsea BOP and goes in further detail about the subsea BOP in the preamble. Examiner did examine the claims together as a whole. The plurality of groups of sensors being positioned at a plurality of locations along an axis of a bore through the subsea BOP is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described in previous office action filed 5/7/2025. The claims state that the system detects the object but the system as claimed does not do anything with this information other than track, make a determination, or classify the object, and examiner therefore fails to see an improvement in the technology as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of applicant response filed 10/7/2025, with respect to claims 12-22 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues in Section I.B. that “The claimed invention is not merely the use of sensors in a BOP, but the specific, ordered physical arrangement of axially-spaced groups of sensors combined with programming that specifically leverages that unique physical structure to achieve a new functionality: the autonomous calculation of an object's speed and direction to improve and, at last resort, fully automate the BOP response to contain a blowout.” Applicant argues that the sensors of McKay do not disclose monitoring velocity of objects or placing the sensors in an axially-spaced group. Applicant argues that the steps recited are patentable despite all constituents of the combination being well known.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ordered physical arrangement of axially-spaced groups of sensors, and automating the BOP response to contain a blowout) are not recited in the rejected claims 12-22. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant’s argument that the sensors of McKay do not disclose monitoring velocity of objects or placing the sensors in an axially-spaced group, examiner disagrees. The sensors of McKay do disclose monitoring a velocity as disclosed in previous office action filed 5/7/2025 in 35 USC 103 Rejection, claim 14. In response to applicant’s argument that the sensors of McKay are not placed in an axially-spaced group, examiner reminds the applicant that although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. There is no mention of the sensors being placed in an axially-spaced group in claims 12-22. In response to applicant’s argument that the steps recited are patentable despite all constituents of the combination being well known, examiner disagrees. Claims 12-22 are solely directed towards monitoring or classifying an object traveling through a bore of a subsea BOP, determining whether the surface rig is not in control of movement of the object, or determining the amount of force required to cut a pipe. Examiner does not see an improvement to technology, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitation in claims 12-22 as recited.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of applicant response filed 10/7/2025, with respect to claims 1-35 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues in Section II.A. that the proposed combination is improper due to teaching away. Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been discouraged from combining McKay and McClung. Applicant argues the combination would result in an impractical, commercially unviable, and technically infeasible system because the nano-devices of McClung represent an unconventional technology path that teaches away from applicant’s invention. Applicant argues that the resulting combination of McKay and McClung would be considered engineering malpractice because it would render the system useless for the existing inventory of conventional drill strings. Applicant argues that the economic burden of using McClung’s nano-tags would teach away from the combined design. Applicant argues that implementing the nano-tags would introduce safety and reliability issues.
Examiner disagrees. Adding the nano-tags of McClung to the monitoring system of McKay would allow for an improvement with respect to the information acquired and allow for additional time for evacuation in case of a kick as described in in McClung [0121] and in previous office action filed 5/7/2025. In response to applicant’s argument that the existing inventory would be useless if the combination of McKay and McClung were used, examiner disagrees. As McClung describes in McClung [0118], the nano-devices may be applied to individual components i.e. it is possible to use traditional equipment and apply the nano-devices to them. In response to applicant’s argument that the economic burden teaches away, examiner disagrees. It is not clear to examiner how the nano-devices of McClung represent a substantial cost burden compared to the RFID devices of applicant’s instant invention. In response to applicant’s argument that implementing the nano-tags would introduce safety and reliability issues, examiner disagrees. As described in McClung [0121], introducing the nano-devices would increase safety.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of applicant response filed 10/7/2025, with respect to claims 1-35 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues in Section II.B. that the combination of McKay and McClung fails to teach “a plurality of groups of sensors at a plurality of different locations” as the individual sensors of McKay and McClung’s series of individual sensors are fundamentally different from the groups of sensors of the instant application. Applicant argues that the combination of McKay and McClung fails to teach “a computer operatively connected to control opening and closing of said ram" in the manner claimed and that applicant’s claims the computer autonomously controlling the ram. Applicant argues that the combination of McKay and McClung fails to teach “a computer being programmed to detect when said BOP sensors detect movement of said object that is not produced by said drilling rig” and that McClung teaches detecting movement and fails to distinguish between commanded movement and an uncommanded event. Applicant argues that the combination of McKay and McClung is improper and therefore the rejections relying on additional references must fail and that the combination of references is an impermissible hindsight reconstruction and that there is no motivation to combine the elements.
Examiner disagrees. The sensors of McClung may be identified with data unique to the device i.e. they may be grouped as described in McClung [0032] and it is possible for any apparatus to have one or more nano device i.e. the sensors would be grouped together. In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of McKay and McClung fails to teach “a computer operatively connected to control opening and closing of said ram", examiner disagrees. McKay teaches an auto shear system which shears the connection between the LMRP and the lower portion of the blowout preventer in the appropriate emergency situation as described in McKay [0037] and in the previous office action filed 5/7/2025. Additionally, McClung teaches communicating with a control system to activate the BOP in McClung [0120] as described in previous office action filed 5/7/2025. In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of McKay and McClung fails to teach “a computer being programmed to detect when said BOP sensors detect movement of said object that is not produced by said drilling rig” and that McClung teaches detecting movement and fails to distinguish between commanded movement and an uncommanded event, examiner disagrees. McClung teaches a method of determining whether a kick that could result in a blowout is occurring i.e. a kick that would cause a blowout would not be a commanded event in McClung [0120] as described in previous office action filed 5/7/2025. In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of McKay and McClung is improper and therefore the rejections relying on additional references must fail and that the combination of references is an impermissible hindsight reconstruction and that there is no motivation to combine the elements, examiner disagrees. Adding the ability to detect the direction of speed and direction of objects of McClung would provide time for evacuation in case of a kick as described by McClung [0121] and in previous office action filed 5/7/2025.
With respect to Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13 of applicant response filed 10/7/2025, with respect to claims 1-35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12 (machine)
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?
It is an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes.
“Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” MPEP 2106.04(a)
“to detect an object moving through said bore.” Detecting an object moving through the bore is an observation of the object.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional element that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
MPEP 2106.05(h) states: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
“A monitoring system for a subsea BOP defining a bore through said subsea BOP operable to receive a string of drill pipe, said BOP comprising a ram, said string of drill pipe comprising a plurality of drill pipe connectors and a plurality of pipe bodies between said drill pipe connectors, comprising:” is directed towards implementing a monitoring system to a field of use.
2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception
“As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").”
The following is using generic computer elements:
“a computer”
“said computer being programmed to utilize said plurality of groups of sensors”
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
MPEP 2106.07(a) states “A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
“a plurality of groups of sensors positioned at a plurality of different locations along an axis of a bore though said subsea BOP,” A plurality of groups of sensors positioned at a plurality of different locations along an axis of a bore though said subsea BOP is regarded as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements.
Jaffrey (US20140064029A1) teaches a BOP having sensors 210 placed along the axis of the bore through a subsea BOP in Jaffrey Fig. 4 and in Jaffrey [0025] “As shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, the subsea BOP stack assembly 100 further includes a subsea electronic data system, which includes at least one sensor 210. In this embodiment, the sensors 210 measure operating conditions of various equipment on the BOP stack 120”
PNG
media_image1.png
762
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McKay et al. (US20120197527A1) teaches a BOP having sensors PT1 and PT2 placed along the axis of the bore through a subsea BOP in McKay Fig. 4 and in McKay [0047] “Likewise, the GUI can provide additional indicators 69 that can display information, such as temperature and pressure readings from BOP sensors PT1 and PT2,”
PNG
media_image2.png
561
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liotta Et al. (US20120000646A1) teaches BOP sensors 400 and 410 placed about the axis of a bore in Liotta Figs. 4A and 4B and in Liotta [0038] “FIGS. 4A-4N depict cross-sectional views of a portion of the actuator 300 a-m having various versions of a monitoring system 103 a-m usable as the actuator 300 and BOP monitoring system 103 of FIG. 3. As shown in each of these figures, the piston 304 is slidably movable within the cylinder 306. The monitoring systems 103 a-m are each positionable about the cylinder 306 and have devices for detecting a position of the piston 304 therein.”
PNG
media_image3.png
712
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The additional elements amount to a generic computer and well-understood, routine, and conventional elements performing an abstract idea. The examiner has considered the limitations together as combination of elements for Step 2B rather than as a plurality of separate ideas to be analyzed individually.
Claim 13: “The monitoring system of claim 12, wherein said computer is programmed to determine a plurality of parameters from said plurality of groups of sensors comprising one or more of wall thickness, imperfections, hardness, dimensions, wear, rate of wear, stress concentration, weight, lateral location, angle, fatigue of vibration, sound, frequency, a lateral location of pipe that is offset from a vertical centerline of said subsea BOP or a or proximity to a subsea BOP internal wall thickness, an angle of a pipe within said subsea BOP with respect to said vertical centerline of said subsea BOP, inductance, an electromagnetic field, capacitance, contactivity, current, deflection, weight, flow rate, impedance, internal pressure, external pressure, fluid volume, length, rate, accumulator pressure, pressure, resistance, temperature, voltage, drill pipe internal pressure, a temperature gradient between seawater and well fluids, compression or tension of a body wall of a string of pipe inside said subsea BOP, flow of fluid through the string of pipe, a change in a shear force to cut said string of pipe, pipe imperfections, hardness, dimensions, wear, stress concentration, RFID information, speed and position of a piston rod, a speed and position of a piston, or speed and position of a said ram, density, or a combination of the above.” The computer being programmed to determine a plurality of parameters from a plurality of groups of sensors is applying a generic computer (2106.05(f)) to a field of use (2106.05(h)).
Claim 14: “The monitoring system of claim 12, wherein said object comprises tool joints, said computer is programmed to monitor a time interval between said tool joints passing through said plurality of groups of sensors to provide a speed of said tool joints passing through said subsea BOP and also to determine a direction of said tool joints passing through said subsea BOP.” The object comprising tool joints is an observation (2106.04(a)) of the object. The computer monitoring a time interval between the tool joints passing the plurality of groups of sensors to determine a speed and direction is a generic computer (2106.05(f)) performing an evaluation (2106.04(a)) based on the data.
Claim 15: “The monitoring system of claim 12, further comprising said computer being programmed to utilize said plurality of groups of sensors to classify said object in said bore.” Classifying the objects is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 16: “The monitoring system of claim 12, further comprising said computer being programmed to utilize said plurality of groups of sensors to classify said object in said bore as a downhole tool, tool joint, pump, motor, drill bit, heavyweight drill pipe, debris, drill pipe joint, drill pipe body section, or unknown object.” Classifying the object is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 17: “The monitoring system of claim 16, further comprising said computer being programmed to utilize a classification of said object to determine whether said ram can cut said object.” Determining whether the ram can cut the object is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 18: “The monitoring system of claim 13, further comprising said computer being programmed to keep track of a depth of said object.” Tracking the depth of the object is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 19: “The monitoring system of claim 13, further comprising said computer being programmed to utilize said plurality of groups of sensors and a design profile or signal analysis or RFID tags to classify said object.” Classifying the object using a design profile or signal analysis is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 20: “The monitoring system of claim 13, further comprising said computer being programmed to detect when an associated surface drilling rig is not in control of a movement of said object moving through said subsea BOP.” Detecting when a rig is not in control of a movement of the object is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 21: “The monitoring system of claim 13, further comprising sensors in said subsea BOP to detect RFID chips embedded in said string of drill pipe, said computer is programmed to use previous inspection data to determine an amount of force to cut a particular pipe in said string of drill pipe based on information stored in said RFID chips.” Sensors detecting RFID chips is well-understood, routine, and conventional (2106.05(d)). Using previous inspection data to determine an amount of force to cut a pipe based on information in the RFID chips is a judgement (2106.04(a)) being performed by a generic computer (2106.05(f)).
Claim 22: “The monitoring system of claim 21 further comprising a database to which said RFID chips are connected, said database permitting entry of information and review of said information.” A database for entering and retrieving information about the RFID chips is a generic computer (2106.05(f)) for storing observations (2106.04(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay et al. (US20120197527A1), in view of McClung (US20120132418A1).
Regarding Claim 1, McKay teaches “A monitoring system for a subsea BOP, said subsea BOP defining a bore through said subsea BOP, said subsea BOP comprising a ram, said subsea BOP being operable to receive a string of pipe moveable through said bore, comprising:” (McKay [0020] "In this example, a drilling rig 16 can be supported at an offshore platform 20, and can be supporting and driving drill pipe 10 within a riser 15. A blowout preventer (“BOP”) stack 18 can be supported by a wellhead 12, which itself is located at or near the seafloor"
McKay Fig. 4 teaches a subsea BOP including an upper ram. McKay Fig. 1 teaches the BOP stack 18 receiving a drill pipe 10.
PNG
media_image4.png
853
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
549
811
media_image5.png
Greyscale
),
“a computer operatively connected to control opening and closing of said ram,” (McKay [0020] "A BOP control computer 24 can be a computer system that controls the operation of the BOP stack 18."), and
“and a plurality of sensors being mounted to said subsea BOP,” (McKay Fig. 4 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches sensors PT1 and PT2 being mounted on the subsea BOP.).
McKay does not appear to explicitly teach “said computer being programmed to utilize said plurality of sensors to detect a direction and a speed of an object within said subsea BOP.”. However, McClung does teach this claim limitation (McClung [0081] "Also, with a McNano device on a moving device or item MD, the location and/or speed of the item can be noted and monitored by an appropriate apparatus S or by appropriate apparatuses S."
McClung teaches that apparatuses S may track the location of a kick as it moves up the tube i.e. direction in McClung [0120] "The apparatuses S can also provide an indication of the location of the kick as it moves up in a tubular."
McClung [0077] "FIG. 1 illustrates schematically a method 10 according to the present invention in which McNano devices 18 (not shown to scale) in a fluid 19 (indicated by arrows pointing down, as viewed in FIG. 1, and pointing up) move within a wellbore 8 being formed in the earth E."
McClung Fig. 5 teaches that Apparatus S for sensing McNano devices and McNano devices 58 may be in the BOP.
PNG
media_image6.png
639
878
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
811
371
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
McKay and McClung are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of oil well operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of McKay and McClung before him/her, to modify the teachings of a computerized monitoring system and corresponding method of monitoring the status and health of a blowout preventer of McKay to include the teachings of systems and methods for using very small devices, “McNano devices,” to facilitate and enhance operations in the oilpatch of McClung because adding the ability to detect the direction of speed and direction of objects of McClung would provide time for evacuation in case of a kick as described by McClung [0121] "The advance warning provided by monitoring the fluid with the McNano devices 148 as the fluid FD moves up in the wellbore can also include alarms and warnings for personnel, e.g. relatively long before the kick approaches the BOP, and provide time for evacuation, for shutting down power sources and critical systems, and for closing off conduits to flow of various fluids on a rig. McNano device(s) with corresponding apparatuses S may be used to ascertain typical indicators of a kick such as, but not limited to, sudden change in drilling rate; change in surface fluid rate; and change in pump pressure—with McNano device(s) located for sensing parameters related to these indicators.”
Regarding claim 2, McKay in view of McClung also teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising said object comprising said string of pipe,” (McClung [0104] "It is within the scope of the present invention in the system 50 for any fluid and any apparatus or conduit to have one or more McNano devices 58 (like those described above; with any and all possible functions for those described above). Certain such devices 58 are indicated on the various things and items of the system 50 as shown in FIG. 5 and in the fluid for the mud motor 54 (see arrow labeled “FLUID” with device 58 indicated therein). Also, apparatuses S may be used on any item, thing, apparatus or equipment of the system 50 and in or on any conduit thereof for sensing, communicating with, controlling, energizing, and/or interrogating a device 58. Certain apparatuses S are shown in FIG. 5."
McClung Fig.5 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches tool string 51 and tubing 52 being items in system 50 with the ability to have a McNano device which may be the object.), and
“said computer being programmed to determine when it is possible for said ram to shear said string of pipe and when it is not possible to shear said string of pipe.” (McKay [0049] "This drilling condition information obtained in the process 70 m can include measured parameters relative to the drilling fluid or mud, the current state of the well itself (drilling, circulating, whether casing is complete, depth, whether non-shearable pipe is disposed within blowout preventer 18, etc.), measurements regarding the downhole conditions at the bit or at the BOP stack 18 itself, such as downhole pressure, downhole temperature, other inputs from the drilling control computer 22, and the like. ").
Regarding claim 3, McKay in view of McClung also teaches “The monitoring system of claim 2, further comprising said computer being programmed to detect a blowout based on said direction and said speed of said string of pipe within said subsea BOP,” (McClung teaches a method of determining whether a kick that could result in a blowout is occurring in McClung [0120] "An apparatus AP senses and analyses the flow of the fluid FD and, in the event an increase in flow is indicated that corresponds to or possibly corresponds to a “kick” that could result in a blowout, the apparatus AP releases, or controls another apparatus AT that releases, McNano device(s) 148 into the fluid FD. Apparatuses S monitor the McNano device(s) 148 and their flow rate. If that rate indicates or increases to indicate that the fluid FD is a kick or will result in activation of the blowout preventer BOP, the apparatuses S communicate with a control system 146 which is in communication directly or indirectly (e.g., via other rig control and/or communication systems) with the blowout preventer BOP (or with systems that control the BOP) and which then activates the blowout preventer BOP"; [0121] “The advance warning provided by monitoring the fluid with the McNano devices 148 as the fluid FD moves up in the wellbore can also include alarms and warnings for personnel”),
“said plurality of sensors comprising a plurality of groups of sensors where each group is axially spaced at different axial positions with respect to said bore of said subsea BOP,” (McClung Fig. 5 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches several Apparatuses S for sensing McNano devices and McNano devices along the axis of a bore through a BOP.),
“said computer being programmed to send a warning signal to a surface position about said blowout when said string of pipe is moving due to said blowout,” (McClung [0121] "The advance warning provided by monitoring the fluid with the McNano devices 148 as the fluid FD moves up in the wellbore can also include alarms and warnings for personnel, e.g. relatively long before the kick approaches the BOP, and provide time for evacuation, for shutting down power sources and critical systems, and for closing off conduits to flow of various fluids on a rig."), and
“said computer being programmed to operate said ram to cut said string of pipe when said computer determines that it is possible to shear said string of pipe and after either or when no response is made to said warning signal.” (McKay teaches an auto shear emergency system that uses the blowout preventer to shear the pipe in the appropriate emergency situation i.e. when a shearable pipe is disposed within the blowout preventer in Mckay [0037] "FIG. 4 illustrates the emergency system health indicators 55 as including an indicator for the emergency disconnect sequence (EDS) function, another indicator for the “deadman” operational function (i.e., the sealing element operating if both of its electrical and hydraulic control systems are failed), and another indicator for the “auto shear” emergency system (i.e., shearing the connection between the LMRP and the lower portion of blowout preventer 18 in the appropriate emergency situation)."
McClung teaches communicating with a control system to activate the BOP i.e. cut the pipe in McClung [0120] “If that rate indicates or increases to indicate that the fluid FD is a kick or will result in activation of the blowout preventer BOP, the apparatuses S communicate with a control system 146 which is in communication directly or indirectly (e.g., via other rig control and/or communication systems) with the blowout preventer BOP (or with systems that control the BOP) and which then activates the blowout preventer BOP”).
Regarding claim 6, McKay in view of McClung also teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, wherein said plurality of sensors provide a plurality of signals wherein said computer is operable for determining one or more offlow rate, flow of fluid through the string of pipeor a combination of the above.” (McClung [0105] "Flow of fluid to and through the annulus 55 can be indicated by sensing with apparatuses S of devices 58 in the fluid in the annulus 55. "; [0115] “Fluid flow rate can also be determined using the device(s) 118 and the apparatuses S.”).
Regarding claim 8, McKay in view of McClung also teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising said computer being programmed to distinguish between a downhole tool, drill pipe joint, drill pipe body pump, motor, drill bit, heavyweight drill pipe, wireline, debris or another unknown object.” (McClung [0104] "It is within the scope of the present invention in the system 50 for any fluid and any apparatus or conduit to have one or more McNano devices 58 (like those described above; with any and all possible functions for those described above). Certain such devices 58 are indicated on the various things and items of the system 50 as shown in FIG. 5 and in the fluid for the mud motor 54 (see arrow labeled “FLUID” with device 58 indicated therein). Also, apparatuses S may be used on any item, thing, apparatus or equipment of the system 50 and in or on any conduit thereof for sensing, communicating with, controlling, energizing, and/or interrogating a device 58. Certain apparatuses S are shown in FIG. 5."
McClung Fig.5 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches bit 53 being an item in system 50 with the ability to have a McNano device which may be identified as described in McClung [0032] "In one method a McNano device in a well operation is a nano-RFID which may be provided, and initialized or configured with identifying data unique to the particular device, and/or unique to an item, composition, person or object associated with the device. This may be (as is true for any McNano device), for example, a serial number, a product code, a name, an encoded identifier, or the like.").
Regarding claim 9, McKay in view of McClung also teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, said computer being programmed to classify said object in said bore as a downhole tool, tool joint, pump, motor, drill bit, heavyweight drill pipe, debris, drill pipe joint, drill pipe body section, or unknown object.” (McClung [0104] "It is within the scope of the present invention in the system 50 for any fluid and any apparatus or conduit to have one or more McNano devices 58 (like those described above; with any and all possible functions for those described above). Certain such devices 58 are indicated on the various things and items of the system 50 as shown in FIG. 5 and in the fluid for the mud motor 54 (see arrow labeled “FLUID” with device 58 indicated therein). Also, apparatuses S may be used on any item, thing, apparatus or equipment of the system 50 and in or on any conduit thereof for sensing, communicating with, controlling, energizing, and/or interrogating a device 58. Certain apparatuses S are shown in FIG. 5."
McClung Fig.5 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches bit 53 being an item in system 50 with the ability to have a McNano device which may be identified as described in McClung [0032] "In one method a McNano device in a well operation is a nano-RFID which may be provided, and initialized or configured with identifying data unique to the particular device, and/or unique to an item, composition, person or object associated with the device. This may be (as is true for any McNano device), for example, a serial number, a product code, a name, an encoded identifier, or the like."
Regarding claim 11, McKay in view of McClung also teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1 wherein said plurality of sensors comprise a non- contact sensor.” (The McNano devices of McClung transmit an RF signal in McClung [0026] " In one aspect of the invention, a McNano device is a nano radio frequency identification (RFID) device that includes a radio frequency (RF) section configured to send an RF signal and at least one antenna operatively coupled to the RF section for emitting the RF signal, and the nano RFID device is configured to be less than about 150 nanometers in each of width, length and thickness."
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay et al. (US20120197527A1), in view of McClung (US20120132418A1), further in view of Kahil et al. (US4715442A).
Regarding Claim 4, McKay in view of McClung teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising said object is a tubular object” (McClung [0104] "It is within the scope of the present invention in the system 50 for any fluid and any apparatus or conduit to have one or more McNano devices 58 (like those described above; with any and all possible functions for those described above). Certain such devices 58 are indicated on the various things and items of the system 50 as shown in FIG. 5 and in the fluid for the mud motor 54 (see arrow labeled “FLUID” with device 58 indicated therein). Also, apparatuses S may be used on any item, thing, apparatus or equipment of the system 50 and in or on any conduit thereof for sensing, communicating with, controlling, energizing, and/or interrogating a device 58. Certain apparatuses S are shown in FIG. 5."
McClung Fig. 5 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches tubing 52 being an item in system 50 with the ability to have a McNano device which is a tubular object and may be identified as described in McClung [0032] "In one method a McNano device in a well operation is a nano-RFID which may be provided, and initialized or configured with identifying data unique to the particular device, and/or unique to an item, composition, person or object associated with the device. This may be (as is true for any McNano device), for example, a serial number, a product code, a name, an encoded identifier, or the like.").
McKay in view of McClung does not appear to explicitly teach “and said computer being programmed to determine a wall thickness of said tubular object within said subsea BOP.”. However, Kahil does teach this claim limitation (Kahil [Column 8 lines 21-34] "The tubing trip tool 2 measures the wall thickness of a tubing section by using a technique in which the total flux induced in the tubing section by a saturating magnetic field is measured. The ferromagnetic tubing section within the saturating magnetic field is saturated when the magnitude of the magnetic field induced in the ferromagnetic element is at a maximum and does not increase as a result of a further increase in the saturating magnetizing field. Thus the saturating magnetizing field can produce a uniform saturated magnetic field in a tubing section having a specified cross-sectional area. In other words, the total magnetic flux is dependent upon the cross-sectional area or wall thickness of the tubular section."
McKay, McClung, and Kahil are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of oil well operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of a computerized monitoring system and corresponding method of monitoring the status and health of a blowout preventer of McKay modified by the teachings of systems and methods for using very small devices, “McNano devices,” to facilitate and enhance operations in the oilpatch of McClung with the defect inspection of tubular elements of Kahil to include the magnetic flux induced in the tubing in order to determine the wall thickness of Kahil in order to provide a convenient direct measurement of average wall thickness, which may determine the presence of defects in a tubing section as described in Kahil [Column 8 lines 51-56] “Thus the total flux can be detected by integrating the EMF produced in the coil over time. In fact, a virtually linear dependence of the total flux through the pickup coil with average wall thickness can be obtained. Thus a convenient direct measurement of average wall thickness can be made.” And in Kahil [Column 4 lines 15-18] “The head includes two separate driving coils, two separate detecting coils, and a plurality of discrete detecting elements to determine the extent of defects in the tubing sections.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay et al. (US20120197527A1), in view of McClung (US20120132418A1), further in view of Kahil et al. (US4715442A), further in view of SHEAR RAM CAPABILITIES STUDY For U.S. Minerals Management Service Requisition No. 3-4025-1001 September 2004 (herein after referred to as “Shear”).
Regarding Claim 5, McKay in view of McClung, further in view of Kahil teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising said plurality of sensors comprising an electromagnetic sensor,” (Kahil [Column 9 line 67 - column 10 line 4] "In the preferred embodiment of this invention, a plurality of flux leakage detecting elements 14 are disposed within the saturating magnetizing field. These flux leakage detecting elements are disposed at a plurality of axially spaced positions within the saturating magnetizing field."), and
“and said electromagnetic sensor being responsive to said m(Kahil teaches that the pipe material affects the flux measurements in Kahil [Column 8 lines 34-37] “If the saturating magnetizing field is uniform, the contribution of the total flux induced by the magnetization of the pipe material within a given area varies as the cross-sectional area of the tubing section.”).
McKay in view of McClung, further in view of Kahil does not appear to teach “said object comprising a metallic object”, however Shear does teach this claim limitation (Shear teaches drill pipes made of metal, which may be the object that is detected in Shear [Page 2-1, first paragraph] "Advances in drill pipe metallurgy, combined with larger and heavier pipe sizes used in modern drilling programs have resulted in instances where pipe on a rig may not be successfully sheared and the wellbore sealed.").
McKay, McClung, Kahil, and Shear are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of oil well operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of a computerized monitoring system and corresponding method of monitoring the status and health of a blowout preventer of McKay modified by the teachings of systems and methods for using very small devices, “McNano devices,” to facilitate and enhance operations in the oilpatch of McClung, further modified by the defect inspection of tubular elements of Kahil to include the teachings of shear ram capabilities study of Shear to include the drill pipe metallurgy of Shear in order to provide a better model of the available shear data than those used by BOP manufacturers as described in Shear [Page 1-3] “The above equations were statistically developed in the study to calculate shear force requirements based upon drill pipe mechanical and dimensional properties. Two steps are important—predict the shear point and add a safety factor—manufacturers are currently adjusting the Distortion Energy Theory in order to do both with one calculation. The study developed equations that provide a better model of the available shear data than those used by the BOP manufacturers.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay et al. (US20120197527A1), in view of McClung (US20120132418A1), further in view of Baoping Cai, Development of an automatic subsea blowout preventer stack control system using PLC based SCADA, ISA Transactions, Volume 51, Issue 1,2012, Pages 198-207, ISSN 0019-0578 (herein after referred to as “Cai”).
Regarding claim 7, McKay in view of McClung teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising a surface sensor positioned at a surface position, said computer being programmed to utilize said surface sensor at said surface position,” (McKay [0039] "The monitoring system 25 can monitor the status of flow rates of potable water and surface flow supplying the downstream components in the hydraulic system"; [0049] “Various inputs, signals, and data can be received by the monitoring system 25, both from downhole sources and also from sources at the surface (i.e., from systems and sensors at the platform 20) in its determination of the health of various elements and systems in the BOP stack 18.”), and
““said computer being programmed as a warning system for (McClung [0121] "The advance warning provided by monitoring the fluid with the McNano devices 148 as the fluid FD moves up in the wellbore can also include alarms and warnings for personnel, e.g. relatively long before the kick approaches the BOP, and provide time for evacuation, for shutting down power sources and critical systems, and for closing off conduits to flow of various fluids on a rig."
McClung teaches that a cellphone i.e. smart device may be used to access the server in McClung [0140] “Optionally, the information in the database 187 of the server 183 may be accessed remotely via a network NT, e.g. but not limited to, the internet. An entity or person 189 may, via the network NT, access the information in the database 187 (e.g., but not limited to, by a cellphone, netbook, or laptop computer or similar device) and, in one particular aspect, may control an apparatus S and/or a McNano device 188 via the network NT.”).
McKay in view of McClung does not appear to teach “ However, Cai does teach this claim limitation (Cai teaches viewing alarm data from remote locations e.g. from a cell phone of McClung in Cai [Page 203 Section 4.4] "The WebView function of Cimplicity HMI/SCADA makes authorized users can remotely view read-only points and alarm data for the project that is broadcasted to the Web server through the Internet network [33]. The WebView screens and WebView broadcast sessions are configured orderly. The broadcast session provides the means to broadcast a Cimplicity WebView screen to an unlimited number of users who can view it from remote locations."; Cai [page 204, right side] “The remote accessed alarm list screen of the subsea BOP stack control system is given in Fig. 12. The alarms of “PLC-A power off”, “PLC-B power off”, “PS21 cannot detect the hydraulic pressure signal”, and “Temperature sensor fails” could be read in the alarm list screen.”
Cai Fig. 12 teaches the alarm screen that is available to the device remotely accessing the subsea BOP control system.
PNG
media_image8.png
866
1028
media_image8.png
Greyscale
).
McKay, McClung, and Cai are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of oil well operations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of a computerized monitoring system and corresponding method of monitoring the status and health of a blowout preventer of McKay modified by the teachings of systems and methods for using very small devices, “McNano devices,” to facilitate and enhance operations in the oilpatch of McClung with the automatic subsea blowout preventer stack control system using PLC based SCADA of Cai to include the remote access of alarms of Cai in order to develop the system easily, correct potential errors easily, and provide high reliability as described in Cai [Pages 198-199, Introduction] “For the subsea BOP system, both of the high reliability and easy development are needed. Therefore, PLC based triple modular redundancy system GE Fanuc Genius Modular Redundancy (GMR) is chosen to provide supervisory control and data acquisition due to the fact that the system can provide the tolerance against single hardware component failures. The subsea BOP system can be developed easily based on the off-the-shelf GMR system, and the potential errors can be corrected easily and rapidly by using the off-the-shelf software. This work focuses on the extremely high reliability of subsea BOP stack which is designed by using hardware redundancy techniques, software redundancy techniques and a series of voting algorithm”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay et al. (US20120197527A1), in view of McClung (US20120132418A1), further in view of SHEAR RAM CAPABILITIES STUDY For U.S. Minerals Management Service Requisition No. 3-4025-1001 September 2004 (herein after referred to as “Shear”).
Regarding Claim 10, McKay in view of McClung teaches “The monitoring system of claim 1 further comprising a rig sensor operable to determine an internal pressure of a pipe” (McClung [0115] "The amount of fluid 114 has a McNano device or devices 118 which