DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 3 directed to claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olson et al. (herein Olson) (US 2022/0056778). Regarding Claim 1:In Figures 1-4 Olson discloses a system (10) comprising: a pressure control equipment (16); and a hydraulic power unit (fluid delivery system 70, see paragraph [0020]) comprising: a fluid reservoir (84); and at least one pump (86) comprising an electric motor configured to power the pump (one or more motors to drive one or more pumps mentioned in paragraph [0020], wherein the at least one pump (86) of the hydraulic power unit (70) is in direct fluidic communication with the pressure control equipment (fluid communication from pump 86 to pressure control equipment 16 via valve manifold 90 is detailed in paragraph [0021]).Regarding Claim 2:In Figures 1-4 Olson discloses the system (10), wherein the pressure control equipment (16) comprises a blowout preventer stack (BOP stack 16, see paragraph [0018]).Regarding Claim 3:In Figures 1-4 Olson discloses the system (10), wherein the system further comprises: a programmable logic controller (control panel 72 with processor 74 and memory 76 for programmable software/firmware, see paragraph [0033]) in electric communication with the hydraulic power unit (as mentioned in paragraph [0021]: “In some embodiments, the one or more pumps 86 may be variable output pumps that are controlled by the control panel 72 to provide the hydraulic fluid with the target parameter(s).” This clearly indicates electric communication between the PLC 72 and pump 86 of the hydraulic power unit 70).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, 12, 15 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (herein Olson) (US 2022/0056778) in view of Bullock et al. (herein Bullock) (US 2015/0320265). Regarding Claim 4:In Figures 1-4 Olson discloses the system (10), further comprising: a power management system (82). Olson is silent regarding whether the power management system comprises a capacitor management system connected to a supercapacitor. However, in Figures 3-4, Bullock discloses a pump (40) driven by a motor (48, see paragraph [0048]) that is controlled by a power management system (170, see paragraph [0057]). The power management system (170) comprises a capacitor management system (sensing circuit or monitoring circuit 179 for measuring the amount of energy remaining in the supercapacitor 225, see paragraph [0062]) connected to a supercapacitor (225, see paragraph [0062]). As further mentioned in paragraph [0012]: “the intermediate energy storage device or supercapacitor is electrically communicated to provide operating power to the motor where the intermediate energy storage device is configured to store a predetermined level of energy or a predetermined upper threshold level of energy that is sufficient to activate the motor through multiple activation cycles.”). Hence, based on Olson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Olson’s power management system (82) to further include a capacitor management system connected to a supercapacitor (as taught by Bullock), since doing so would allow for electrical energy to be stored in a supercapacitor that could be rapidly discharged to power Olson’s electric motor during startup/activation (as explained above based on Bullock’s paragraph [0012]) and this supercapacitor would also serve as a backup power source to Olson’s existing batteries (see battery systems 100 and 102 in Olson’s Figure 2 and paragraph [0023]). Regarding Claim 5:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), wherein the power management system further comprises: a stored electrical energy system (as mentioned in paragraph [0023]: “The closing unit system 70 may also include the one or more power source systems 82, which may include a first battery system 100 (e.g., having a first rechargeable power storage device, such as a battery; a power management system) and a second battery system 102 (e.g., having a second rechargeable power storage device, such as a battery; a power management system).” This indicates that the power management system 82 comprises a stored electrical energy system 100, 102).Regarding Claim 6:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), wherein the stored electrical energy system (100, 102) comprises: a battery management system (power management system, see paragraph [0023]) connected to a battery pack (see paragraph [0023] and Figure 2).Regarding Claim 10:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), wherein the PLC (72) is configured to evaluate a power need of the hydraulic power unit (as mentioned in paragraph [0021], the PLC 72 can receive input from an operator or sensors which in turn correspond to the power need of the hydraulic power unit 70 to activate pumps 86 as needed), and wherein the PLC is configured to send instructions to deliver power if the power need of the hydraulic power unit aligns with a first operational status of the hydraulic power unit (for instance when the power need aligns with a first operation status such as pump startup, the power can be provided by the power system 82 based on instructions from the PLC 72 as mentioned in paragraph [0021]).Since Olson has been modified by Bullock to add the supercapacitor, Olson does not disclose the PLC commanding the supercapacitor to discharge in the claimed scenarios. However, Olson’s PLC clearly commands batteries (100, 102) of the power system (82) to provide this power based on PLC commands (see paragraphs [0021] and [0023]). Hence, it can be seen that Olson’s PLC is capable of sending instructions to the power management system (82) to provide power to the hydraulic power unit. Furthermore, in paragraph [0012] Bullock discloses that a supercapacitor can be controlled by a controller to provide power sufficient for motor activation.Hence, based on Olson’s existing teachings and Bullock’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Olson’s PLC (72) to allow it to command the added supercapacitor to discharge for instance when the first operational status of the hydraulic power unit corresponds to pump activation (as taught by Olson and Bullock above), since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as reliably adapting an existing power system to operate with a backup power source that would provide sufficient dispersion of power in higher power demand scenarios such as pump/motor activation. Regarding Claim 12:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), wherein the first operational status of the hydraulic power unit is start-up of the electric motor (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 10).Regarding Claim 15:Olson as modified by Bullock is silent regarding whether the first operational status of the hydraulic power unit is an emergency mode.However, in paragraph [0021], Olson discloses that a pressure surge within the BOP stack (16) can be sensed and in response the PLC (72) can command the power system (82) to deliver power to the pumps (86) of the hydraulic power unit (70). It is known in the art that a pressure surge in a BOP stack can indicate an emergency. Hence, based on this disclosure and the rejection of claim 10, it can be seen that the proposed modification can correspond to an operational status that is an emergency mode (i.e., the detected pressure surge in the BOP stack can be a potential emergency requiring activation of pumps. BOP is for blowout prevention and so excessive pressures can be an emergency that can cause a blowout as is known in the art). Therefore, the previously proposed modification can apply to an operational status that is an emergency mode requiring activation of pumps. Regarding Claims 19-20:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), further comprising: at least one human machine interface connected to the capacitor management system and the stored electrical energy system (as mentioned in Olson’s paragraph [0033]: “The control panel 72 may also include the display 80, which may be configured to display data and/or other information locally at the control panel 72 for visualization by the operator. The display 80 may be a touchscreen that is capable of receiving inputs from the operator. However, it should be appreciated that the control panel 72 may be configured to receive inputs from the operator via other inputs devices (e.g., push buttons). Indeed, the control panel 72 may include any of a variety of input and/or output devices (e.g., lights, speakers, push buttons, the display 80) to receive and/or to provide data, information, and/or alerts to the operator.” These interfaces are well known human machine interfaces and would be connected to the added capacitor management system and the stored electrical energy system via the PLC 72), wherein the at least one human machine interface is in electric communication with the PLC (as evident from paragraph [0033]).Regarding Claim 21:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), wherein the pressure control equipment comprises at least one sensor that monitors at least one condition (as mentioned in Olson’s paragraph [0021]: “In operation, the control panel 72 may receive an input (e.g., from an operator and/or from one or more sensors, such as from one or more pressure sensors exposed to the central bore 28 of the BOP stack 16).”), wherein the PLC is configured to process feedback received from the at least one sensor, and wherein the PLC is configured to evaluate the power need of the hydraulic power unit based on the feedback (as further mentioned in Olson’s paragraph [0021]: “The control panel 72 may process the input to determine whether to actuate any of the actuatable devices of the BOP stack 16. For example, in response to receipt of the input indicating a request to initiate a test procedure or indicating a surge in pressure within the central bore of the BOP stack 16, the control panel 72 may instruct the one or more power systems 82 to deliver power to the one or more pumps 86. Then, the one or more pumps 86 may pump the hydraulic fluid from the one or more fluid reservoirs 84 to the one or more valve manifolds 90.” This clearly indicates that the PLC can command power delivery to activate pumps 86 of the hydraulic power unit 70 in response to sensed pressure).Regarding Claim 22:Olson as modified by Bullock discloses the system (10), wherein the at least one condition is at least one wellbore condition (as mentioned in Olson’s paragraph [0021]: “For example, in response to receipt of the input indicating a request to initiate a test procedure or indicating a surge in pressure within the central bore of the BOP stack 16, the control panel 72 may instruct the one or more power systems 82 to deliver power to the one or more pumps 86.” This surge in pressure within the central bore of the BOP stack 16 is a wellbore condition that is monitored by pressure sensors).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (herein Olson) (US 2022/0056778) in view of Bullock et al. (herein Bullock) (US 2015/0320265) as evidenced by Bruestle (US 2022/0089261).
Regarding Claim 7:Olson as modified by Bullock is silent regarding whether the stored electrical energy system comprises: a hydrogen fuel cell.However, it is extremely well known in the art that hydrogen fuel cells can be used as a power source to power an electric motor. For instance, in paragraph [0011] Bruestle, discloses a motor (2) that is powered by power source (11) that may include a battery or a hydrogen fuel cell. Hence, based on common knowledge in the art and the evidence provided by Bruestle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced one or more of Olson’s batteries (100 or 102) with a hydrogen fuel cell, since doing so would constitute a simple substitution that would yield predictable results such as providing a clean power source with faster recharging.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (herein Olson) (US 2022/0056778) in view of Bullock et al. (herein Bullock) (US 2015/0320265) in further view of Kim (KR 20160016094, English translation appended). Regarding Claims 8-9:Olson as modified by Bullock is silent regarding a bidirectional convertor of the power management system electrically connected to the supercapacitor (per claim 8) and to the stored electrical energy system (per claim 9). However in paragraph [0020] Kim states: “The bidirectional inverter 20 is installed between the battery pack 30 and the motor 10 to act as a bidirectional current source.” Kim further states that during reverse rotation of the motor, the supercapacitor can be charged via the bidirectional converter. Hence, based on Kim’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have installed a bidirectional converter (of the type taught by Kim) to be electrically connected to the added supercapacitor (see rejection of claim 4 above) that would be part of the power management system and be connected to the PLC, since doing so would allow for the bidirectional converter to provide power from the supercapacitor and also potentially recharge the supercapacitor by reversing motor rotation (per claim 8). It would also be obvious to electrically connect this bidirectional convertor to the stored electrical energy system since doing so would be obvious to try and would yield predictable results such as providing a bidirectional current source to recharge the batteries of the stored electrical energy system (per claim 9).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (herein Olson) (US 2022/0056778) in view of Baracco et al. (US 20210080172).Olson discloses that the pumps (86) may be variable output pumps which typically have a variable frequency drive controlled motor (see Olson’s paragraph [0021]). However, Olsen is silent regarding whether the system further comprises: at least one of a solid-state starter and a variable frequency drive that is configured to control inrush current to the electric motor.However, it is extremely well known in the art that variable frequency drive electric motors are often started using a solid state/soft starter to prevent excessive current inrush during startup. For instance, in paragraph [0166], Baracco discloses a variable frequency drive for an electric motor that is controlled by a solid-state starter (soft starter 131) in order to achieve a steady state rotational speed and/or to control the voltage drop at the grid connection during start-up of the electric motor.Hence based on common knowledge in the art and Baracco’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have controlled Olson’s electric motor with a variable frequency drive and a solid-state starter, since doing so would ensure Olson’s pumps to have a variable output while achieving a steady state rotational speed and controlling the voltage drop (and current inrush) during startup of the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitations: wherein the PLC (24) is configured to evaluate a power need of the hydraulic power unit (12), wherein the PLC (24) is configured to send instructions to discharge the supercapacitor (40) if the power need of the hydraulic power unit aligns with a first operational status of the hydraulic power unit, wherein the PLC is configured to send instructions to use the stored electrical energy system (44) if the power need of the hydraulic power unit aligns with a second operational status of the hydraulic power unit, and wherein the first operational status requires a higher power demand than the second operational status.
As proposed above in the rejection of similar claim 10, Olson as modified by Bullock includes the supercapacitor that can be commanded to discharge at a first operational status of the hydraulic power unit. However, since Olson already discloses in paragraph [0021] that the power management system (82) is commanded by the PLC (72) to activate pumps (86) for instance, and this power management system (82) comprises batteries (see Olson’s paragraph [0023]), further modifying Olson’s algorithm to comparatively command the added supercapacitor and the existing batteries to operate based on specific power demands would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction since these specific steps are not disclosed by either Olson or Bullock.
Ahn et al. (KR 102153626) discloses a power management system for a pump (110) driven by a motor (111, see Figure 6) in a vehicle. The power sources include a supercapacitor (330) and an stored electrical energy system (battery 340). However, Ahn does not disclose if this power management system is adapted for a hydraulic power unit in a system further comprising pressure control equipment and is instead focused on the power demands based on vehicle load (see abstract).
Ni Scanaill et al. (US 20170170675) discloses a power management system for an IoT device that includes a supercapacitor (14) and a battery (20). However, this is not adapted to the power demands of a hydraulic power unit as claimed.
Further searches have not yielded a power management system that includes both a supercapacitor as well as a stored electrical energy system that is operated in the claimed manner to provide power to a hydraulic power unit.
Claims 13-14, 16-17 and 23-24 are also allowable as they depend on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11407327 – Controlling supercapacitors and batteries. US 20230205239 – Blowout prevention control system.US 20230198295 – Wellsite power management. See appended PTO-892 for more relevant prior art related to pressure control equipment and/or power management systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 pm -8 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746