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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Amendments filed on 03/12/2026, wherein Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Examiner’s objections: Applicant's arguments, see Remarks (pages 10-12), filed on 03/12/2026, with respect to the objections to the Claims have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the Claims addressing the informalities raised in the previous Office Action, the objections to the Claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding 112(b) rejection: Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/12/2026 regarding the 112(b) rejection, were found persuasive. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding 101 rejection: Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/12/2026 regarding the 101 rejection with respect to Claims 1-20, were fully considered but found not persuasive.
Applicant’s claims do not specify the parameters used (can be any), what type of sensor is used (can be any) and particular ranges of the parameters. The “alter” clause in the last limitation is not specified. Claim 1 is the example of field of use attached to the algorithm, and the algorithm itself is not specified. All these arguments were discussed during the interview, but the amendments do not show the result of these discussions.
There is no technological advancement in the claim, no improvement for the process, only routine and well-known operations steps. Registering the valve failure and deciding to replace it or repair, does not show the advancement in technology, it is the standard and routine operation.
Practical application must be shown using meaningful additional elements. The additional elements, cited by the Applicant, are recited in generality and do not recite particular machines applying or being used by the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05, specifically about the particular machine: see part I, The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; Part II, Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, and Part III, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity of a field-of use). Prior art cited in the rejection, shows claimed additional elements as well-known in the art, routine and conventional.
Regarding 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections: Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/12/2026 with respect to claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a machine/process. The below claim is considered to be a statutory category (process).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ‘’additional elements’’.
A method for remotely evaluating a hydraulically actuated subsea valve used to regulate a flow of a fluid with respect to a subsea wellbore during a subterranean field operation, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of values associated with measurements of a parameter, wherein the measurements are measured by a plurality of sensor devices, wherein the plurality of sensor devices is configured to measure the parameter at a plurality of locations along a network of hydraulic lines that circulates a hydraulic fluid with respect to an actuator of the hydraulic hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the parameter is associated with an operation of the actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation;
executing, in real time, an algorithm using the plurality of values to generate a result;
comparing, in real time, the result of the algorithm with a range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, wherein the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is based on a signature of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the signature is established using prior results of the algorithm;
determining, in real time, that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has a potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve; and
sending, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, a notification to an operator, wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that when recited as such in a claim limitation covers mathematical processes (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
Step of “executing, in real time, an algorithm using the plurality of values to generate a result” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical process grouping.
Steps of “comparing, in real time, the result of the algorithm with a range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, wherein the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is based on a signature of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the signature is established using prior results of the algorithm” and “determining, in real time, that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has a potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to combination of mental and mathematical process groupings.
With regards to the mental steps, according to the 2019 PEG: “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”).”
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Limitations of “obtaining a plurality of values associated with measurements of a parameter”, ‘wherein the measurements are measured by a plurality of sensor devices”, “wherein the plurality of sensor devices is configured to measure the parameter at a plurality of locations along a network of hydraulic lines that circulates a hydraulic fluid with respect to an actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve”, and “wherein the parameter is associated with an operation of the actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation”, and “sending, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, a notification to an operator, wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation” are treated as extra solution activities recited in generality (e.g., mere data gathering) and steps recited at a high level of generality such that substantially all practical applications of the judicial exception(s) are covered.
The additional elements: “a hydraulically actuated subsea valve”, “a flow of fluid”, “a subsea wellbore”, “a plurality of values”, “measurements”, “a parameter”, “a plurality of sensor devices”, “a plurality of locations”, “a network of hydraulic lines”, “a hydraulic fluid”, “an actuator”, “a subterranean field operation”, “an algorithm”, “a result”, “a range of acceptable values”, “a potential failure”, “a notification”, “an operator”, and “information” add extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The preamble of Claim 1: “A method for remotely evaluating a hydraulically actuated subsea valve used to regulate a flow of a fluid with respect to a subsea wellbore during a subterranean field operation” is a generically recited preamble.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this particular case, the claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.) The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process).
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20200240231 to Leach et al. (hereinafter Leach’231) and US20230313640A1 to Hofacker et al. (hereinafter Hofacker).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Similar analysis has been applied to independent Claims 12 and 20. The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-11, and 13-19 merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional limitations corresponding to mathematical relationship grouping. These limitations do not help to integrate the claims into a practical application or make them significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claims to a particular practical application).
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 2, 4, 8-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200240231 to Leach et al. (hereinafter Leach’231) in view of US20210317737A1 to Leach et al. (hereinafter Leach’737).
Regarding Claim 1: Leach’231 discloses:
“A method for remotely evaluating a hydraulically actuated subsea valve used to regulate a flow of a fluid with respect to a subsea wellbore during a subterranean field operation” (para 0008 – “allow for testing (interpreted as evaluating, added by examiner) of component(s) (e.g., a pressure source, valve(s), and/or the like) associated with actuation of a hydraulically-actuated device without requiring full actuation of the hydraulically-actuated device via, for example, a valve configured to selectively direct fluid from a pressure source to the hydraulically-actuated device or a vent such that, for example, when the valve directs fluid from the pressure source to the vent, other valve(s) upstream of the valve, the pressure source, and/or the like can be tested without fully actuating the hydraulically-actuated device”; para 0010 – “one or more valve assemblies, each having a conduit defining an inlet configured to be in fluid communication with a pressure source, an outlet configured to be in fluid communication with a respective hydraulically-actuated device, and a vent configured to be in fluid communication with a reservoir and/or a subsea environment”; para 0005 – “While testing is an effective way to reduce PFD (PFD is a probability of failure on demand, added by examiner)… necessitating time- and cost-intensive measures, such as the removal of any objects, such as drill pipe, disposed within the wellbore, the disconnection of the lower marine riser package, and/or the like.”), the method comprising:
“obtaining a plurality of values associated with measurements of a parameter,
wherein the measurements are measured by a plurality of sensor devices” (para 0040 – “System 10 can include one or more sensors 74 configured to capture data indicative of system 10 parameters such as, for example, a pressure, flow rate, temperature, and/or the like of fluid within the system (e.g., within pressure source 26, hydraulically-actuated device 22, fluid reservoir 58, conduit 42, and/or the like), the position of valve(s)”)
“wherein the plurality of sensor devices is configured to measure the parameter at a plurality of locations along a network of hydraulic lines that circulates a hydraulic fluid with respect to an actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the parameter is associated with an operation of the actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation” (para 0014 – “at least one of the sensor(s) is configured to capture data indicative of at least one of: temperature, pressure, and flow rate of hydraulic fluid within the system”; para 0032 – “System 10 can include a control unit 14, one or more valve assemblies 18 (e.g., one valve assembly, as shown), a hydraulically-actuated device 22, and a pressure source 26. As will be described in more detail below, system 10 can be configured to actuate hydraulically-actuated device 22, facilitate testing of component(s) (e.g., pressure source 26, valve assembly 18, and/or the like) associated with actuation of the hydraulically-actuated device, and/or the like. … a hydraulically-actuated device (e.g., 22) can be any suitable device, such as, for example, an accumulator, test valve, failsafe valve, kill and/or choke line and/or valve, riser joint, hydraulic connector, and/or the like.”), and
“executing, in real time, an algorithm using the plurality of values to generate a result; comparing, in real time, the result of the algorithm with a range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, wherein the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is based on a signature of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the signature is established using prior results of the algorithm” (para 0043 – “At step 98, data indicative of one or more actual system parameters can be captured (e.g., using sensor(s) 74). Such actual system parameter(s) can include any suitable parameter, such as, for example, any one or more of those described above with respect to sensor(s) 74. At step 102, the actual system parameter(s) can be compared to corresponding expected system parameter(s) (i.e. acceptable values, added by examiner). Such expected system parameter(s) can include, for example, known, (i.e. established using prior results, added by examiner) minimum, maximum, calculated (i.e. the result of executing the algorithm, added by examiner), commanded, and/or historical value(s));
“determining, in real time, that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has a potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (Para 0043 – “At step 106, fault(s) can be detected. For example, a fault can be detected if difference(s) between the actual and expected system parameter(s) exceed a threshold (e.g., the actual and expected system parameter(s) differ by 1, 5, 10, 15, 20% or more), a time rate of change of an actual system parameter (which may itself be a system parameter) is below or exceeds a threshold, an actual system parameter is below a minimum value or exceeds a maximum value, and/or the like. Further, a fault may be detected if, for example, a majority of (e.g., two out of three) sensor(s) 74 participating in a voting scheme capture data that indicates a fault”);
“sending, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, a notification to an operator” (para 0043 – “Faults detected at step 106 can be communicated (i.e. sending a notification, added by examiner) to an above-sea control station,(i.e. to an operator, added by examiner) stored in a memory, and/or the like.”).
Leach’231 does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation”.
However, Leach’737 discloses:
“wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation” (Fig. 2; para 0056 – “During step 142, system parameter value(s) can be sensed, compared to expected system parameter value(s), and fault(s) can be identified and/or detected in a same or substantially similar fashion to as described above for steps 132, 136, and 140”; step 142 – “Move the piston of the hydraulically-actuated device to a maximum second position (i.e. alter the subterranean filed operation, added by examiner)”).
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 method, disclosed by Leach’231, as taught by Leach’737, in order to improve the safety of the subterranean field operation.
Regarding Claim 2: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein the prior results of the algorithm include a plurality of prior values associated with the parameter from the plurality of sensor devices and that are associated with the actuator of the hydraulic hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0043 – “At step 98, data indicative of one or more actual system parameters can be captured (e.g., using sensor(s) 74). Such actual system parameter(s) can include any suitable parameter, such as, for example, any one or more of those described above with respect to sensor(s) 74. At step 102, the actual system parameter(s) can be compared to corresponding expected system parameter(s). Such expected system parameter(s) can include, for example, known, (i.e. prior values, added by examiner) minimum, maximum, calculated (i.e. the result of executing the algorithm, added by examiner), commanded, and/or historical value(s)); para 0032 – “System 10 can include a control unit 14, one or more valve assemblies 18 (e.g., one valve assembly, as shown), a hydraulically-actuated device 22, and a pressure source 26. … system 10 can be configured to actuate hydraulically-actuated device 22, facilitate testing of component(s) (e.g., pressure source 26, valve assembly 18, and/or the like) associated with actuation of the hydraulically-actuated device, and/or the like. … a hydraulically-actuated device (e.g., 22) can be any suitable device, such as, for example, an accumulator, test valve, failsafe valve, kill and/or choke line and/or valve, riser joint, hydraulic connector, and/or the like).
Regarding Claim 4: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“further comprising: controlling, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, an operation of at least one of a group consisting of a hydraulic fluid source and a control valve for providing the hydraulic fluid to the actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0008 – “allow for testing of component(s) (e.g., a pressure source, valve(s), and/or the like) associated with actuation of a hydraulically-actuated device without requiring full actuation of the hydraulically-actuated device via, for example, a valve configured to selectively direct fluid from a pressure source (i.e. hydraulic fluid source, added by examiner) to the hydraulically-actuated device or a vent such that, for example, when the valve (interpreted as a control valve, added by examiner) directs fluid from the pressure source to the vent, other valve(s) upstream of the valve, the pressure source, and/or the like”)
“sending a notification about the potential failure of the hydraulic valve” (para 0043 – “Faults detected at step 106 can be communicated (i.e. sending a notification, added by examiner) to an above-sea control station,(i.e. to an operator, added by examiner) stored in a memory, and/or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 8: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure comprises identifying a particular problem with the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0009 – “sensor(s) configured to detect at least one of: (i) loss of fluid and/or electrical communication between the blowout preventer stack and an above-sea control station (i.e. identifying a particular problem, added by examiner)”; para 0043 – “At step 106, fault(s) can be detected. For example, a fault can be detected if difference(s) between the actual and expected system parameter(s) exceed a threshold (e.g., the actual and expected system parameter(s) differ by 1, 5, 10, 15, 20% or more), a time rate of change of an actual system parameter (which may itself be a system parameter) is below or exceeds a threshold, an actual system parameter is below a minimum value or exceeds a maximum value, and/or the like. Further, a fault may be detected if, for example, a majority of (e.g., two out of three) sensor(s) 74 participating in a voting scheme capture data that indicates a fault”).
Regarding Claim 9: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein the range of acceptable values is determined using a factor comprising at least one of a group consisting of a depth of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve in water, a manufacturer of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, a model of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and type of the hydraulically actuated subsea fluid, and a configuration of the actuator of the hydraulic hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0033 – “The present systems (e.g., 10) can be used with any suitable hydraulic fluid, such as, for example, an oil-based fluid, sea water, desalinated water, treated water, water-glycol, and/or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 10: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein the range of acceptable values is adjusted based on subsequent results of the algorithm using subsequent values of the measurements associated with the parameter from the plurality of sensor devices” (para 0043 – “At step 102, the actual system parameter(s) can be compared to corresponding expected system parameter(s). Such expected system parameter(s) can include, for example, known, minimum, maximum, calculated, commanded, and/or historical value(s) (i.e. subsequent values of the measurements, added by examiner). At step 106, fault(s) can be detected. For example, a fault can be detected if difference(s) between the actual and expected system parameter(s) exceed a threshold (e.g., the actual and expected system parameter(s) differ by 1, 5, 10, 15, 20% or more), a time rate of change of an actual system parameter (which may itself be a system parameter) is below or exceeds a threshold, an actual system parameter is below a minimum value or exceeds a maximum value, and/or the like”).
Regarding Claim 11: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the range of acceptable values is adjusted based on repairs performed on the hydraulically actuated subsea valve relative to the potential failure”.
Regarding the limitation: “wherein the range of acceptable values is adjusted based on repairs performed on the hydraulically actuated subsea valve relative to the potential failure”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the ranges would be adjusted after the repairs conducted on the valves, to better protect the system against the potential failures, and improve the accuracy of the measurements made after the repairs.
Regarding Claim 12: Leach’231 discloses:
“A system for remotely evaluating a hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0008 – “Some embodiments of the present systems are configured to allow for testing (interpreted as evaluating, added by examiner) of component(s) (e.g., a pressure source, valve(s), and/or the like) associated with actuation of a hydraulically-actuated device”; para 0010 – “one or more valve assemblies, each having a conduit defining an inlet configured to be in fluid communication with a pressure source, an outlet configured to be in fluid communication with a respective hydraulically-actuated device, and a vent configured to be in fluid communication with a reservoir and/or a subsea environment”);
“the system comprising: a plurality of sensor devices that are configured to measure a parameter at a plurality of locations along a network of hydraulic lines that circulates a hydraulic fluid with respect to an actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the parameter is associated with the actuator of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during a subterranean field operation” (para 0014 – “at least one of the sensor(s) is configured to capture data indicative of at least one of: temperature, pressure, and flow rate of hydraulic fluid within the system”; para 0032 – “System 10 can include a control unit 14, one or more valve assemblies 18 (e.g., one valve assembly, as shown), a hydraulically-actuated device 22, and a pressure source 26. As will be described in more detail below, system 10 can be configured to actuate hydraulically-actuated device 22, facilitate testing of component(s) (e.g., pressure source 26, valve assembly 18, and/or the like) associated with actuation of the hydraulically-actuated device, and/or the like. … a hydraulically-actuated device (e.g., 22) can be any suitable device, such as, for example, an accumulator, test valve, failsafe valve, kill and/or choke line and/or valve, riser joint, hydraulic connector, and/or the like.”), and
“a controller communicably coupled to the plurality of sensor devices, wherein the controller is configured to: obtain, in real time, a plurality of values associated with measurements of the parameter, wherein the measurements are measured by the plurality of sensor devices” (para 0046 – “System 10 can include a processor 78, which can form part of a control unit 14… Processor 78 can be configured to communicate with an above-sea control station to, for example, send and/or receive data, commands, signals, and/or the like… As used herein, “processor” encompasses a programmable logic controller”; para 0050 – “ processor 78 a can be configured to actuate valve assembly 18 a and/or pressure source 26 a based, at least in part, on data captured by sensor(s) 74 a.”; para 0040 – “System 10 can include one or more sensors 74 configured to capture data indicative of system 10 parameters such as, for example, a pressure, flow rate, temperature, and/or the like of fluid within the system (e.g., within pressure source 26, hydraulically-actuated device 22, fluid reservoir 58, conduit 42, and/or the like), the position of valve(s) (e.g., 62, 66, and/or the like), the dimension(s) (e.g., size, thickness, and/or the like) of an object (e.g., pipe)”)
“execute, in real time, an algorithm using the plurality of values to generate a result; compare, in real time, the result of the algorithm with a range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, wherein the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is based on a signature of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the signature is established using prior results of the algorithm” (para 0043 – “At step 98, data indicative of one or more actual system parameters can be captured (e.g., using sensor(s) 74). Such actual system parameter(s) can include any suitable parameter, such as, for example, any one or more of those described above with respect to sensor(s) 74. At step 102, the actual system parameter(s) can be compared to corresponding expected system parameter(s) (i.e. acceptable values, added by examiner). Such expected system parameter(s) can include, for example, known, (i.e. established using prior results, added by examiner) minimum, maximum, calculated (i.e. the result of executing the algorithm, added by examiner), commanded, and/or historical value(s));
“determine, in real time, that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has a potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (Para 0043 – “At step 106, fault(s) can be detected. For example, a fault can be detected if difference(s) between the actual and expected system parameter(s) exceed a threshold (e.g., the actual and expected system parameter(s) differ by 1, 5, 10, 15, 20% or more), a time rate of change of an actual system parameter (which may itself be a system parameter) is below or exceeds a threshold, an actual system parameter is below a minimum value or exceeds a maximum value, and/or the like. Further, a fault may be detected if, for example, a majority of (e.g., two out of three) sensor(s) 74 participating in a voting scheme capture data that indicates a fault”);
“send, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, a notification to an operator” (para 0043 – “Faults detected at step 106 can be communicated (i.e. sending a notification, added by examiner) to an above-sea control station,(i.e. to an operator, added by examiner) stored in a memory, and/or the like.”).
Leach’231 does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation”.
However, Leach’737 discloses:
“wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation” (Fig. 2; para 0056 – “During step 142, system parameter value(s) can be sensed, compared to expected system parameter value(s), and fault(s) can be identified and/or detected in a same or substantially similar fashion to as described above for steps 132, 136, and 140”; step 142 – “Move the piston of the hydraulically-actuated device to a maximum second position (i.e. alter the subterranean filed operation, added by examiner)”).
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 method, disclosed by Leach’231, as taught by Leach’737, in order to improve the safety of the subterranean field operation.
Regarding Claim 13: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the system of Claim 12.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein the parameter comprises a pressure” (para 0040 – “System 10 can include one or more sensors 74 configured to capture data indicative of system 10 parameters such as, for example, a pressure”).
Regarding Claim 14: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the system of Claim 12.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein the range of acceptable values are relative to an amount of the time for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve to transition from being fully closed to fully open” (para 0045 – “At step 110, the first valve can be moved to a closed position. Steps 90-110 can be repeated any suitable number of times, and such repetition can occur at any suitable interval (e.g., 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or more hours, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or more days, and/or the like). In these ways and others, method 86 and similar methods can provide for testing of component(s) (e.g., pressure source 26, first valve 62, second valve 66, and/or the like) that are associated with actuation of a hydraulically-actuated device (e.g., 22)”).
Regarding Claim 15: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the system of Claim 12.
Leach’231 further discloses:
“wherein the parameter comprises a pressure” (para 0040 – “System 10 can include one or more sensors 74 configured to capture data indicative of system 10 parameters such as, for example, a pressure, flow rate”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach’231 in view of Leach’737 and in further view of US20230313640A1 Hofacker et al. (hereinafter Hofacker).
Regarding Claim 3: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses hydraulically actuated subsea valve. Leach’231/Leach’737 does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the prior results of the algorithm include a plurality of prior values associated with the parameter from an alternative plurality of sensor devices, wherein the plurality of prior values is associated with an alternative actuator of an alternative hydraulic hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the alternative hydraulic hydraulically actuated subsea valve is used in another subterranean field operation”.
However, Hofacker discloses:
“wherein the prior results of the algorithm include a plurality of prior values associated with the parameter from an alternative plurality of sensor devices, wherein the plurality of prior values are associated with an alternative actuator of an alternative hydraulic valve” (para 0032 – “The sensors 60 also may comprise a variety of other sensors, such as a voltage sensor to monitor voltage associated with motor 48. Similarly, the sensors 60 may comprise a current sensor to monitor current associated with operation of motor 48. The sensors 60 also may comprise a speed sensor which may be used to monitor the rotations and/or rotational speed of motor 48 (i.e. voltage, current, speed sensor is the alternative plurality of sensor devices, added by examiner). This type of data may be used, for example, to map corresponding pump rotations so as to estimate the position of piston 46 (i.e. actuator, added by examiner) based on displacement of hydraulic fluid through flowlines 54. Various other sensors 60 also may be used to provide desired data for monitoring operation of valve 42. The data from sensors 60 may be processed in a variety of ways (i.e. algorithm, added by examiner) to facilitate monitoring of the operation and performance of valve 42 and/or other application specific attachments 30 and/or other components of well system 20.”), and
“wherein the alternative hydraulic valve is used in another subterranean field operation” (para 0034 – “the well system 20 may be withdrawn and another one of the application-specific attachments 30 may be interchanged with the previous application-specific attachment for use in a different well operation during another run downhole (i.e. another subterranean field operation, added by examiner”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737 combination, as taught by Hofacker, in order to make the results of the algorithm independent of the specific type of the sensor and the specific type of the subterranean field operation and hence improve the evaluation accuracy.
Claims 5-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach’231/Leach’737 combination in view of US20200190939 to Gray et al. (hereinafter Gray) and in further of US20060011360 to Noel (hereinafter Noel).
Regarding Claim 5: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the method of Claim 1.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the network of hydraulic lines comprises a control valve, a main line, a regulator, an inlet line, and a discharge line, and wherein the algorithm comprises a differential pressure that includes part of the network of hydraulic lines”.
However, Gray discloses:
“wherein the network of hydraulic lines comprises a control valve” (claim 14 – “wherein each of the hydraulic circuits comprises an electrically-driven directional control valve”),
“a main line” (para 0014 – “the assembly can comprise a manifold (i.e. main line, added by examiner) having the one or more flow inlets and having one or more flow outlets”),
“a regulator” (para 0112 – “rig air supply 172 for the circuits 180 a-b is split and passes through filter-regulator-lubricator components 181 a-b to pneumatic pumps 186 a-b.”),
“an inlet line” (para 0014 – “The one or more flow inlets can be disposed in fluid communication with an upstream portion of the drilling system and can receive the fluid flow therefrom”), and
“a discharge line” (para 0014 – “The one or more flow outlets can be disposed in fluid communication with a downstream portion of the drilling system and can deliver the fluid flow thereto.”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737 combination, as taught by Gray, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve more accurate.
Gray does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the algorithm comprises a differential pressure that includes part of the network of hydraulic lines”.
However, Noel discloses:
“wherein the algorithm comprises a differential pressure that includes part of the network of hydraulic lines” (Abstract - ” The pressure of the load-sense circuit (6′) is set by a force of a spring element (12) and biased by a control element (42) of the monitoring valve (i.e. part of the network of hydraulic lines, added by examiner) with differential pressure sensing”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination, as taught by Noel, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve more accurate.
Regarding Claim 6: Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray/Noel combination discloses the method of Claim 5.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the hydraulically actuated subsea valve.
Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the differential pressure is measured during a period of time when the hydraulic fluid flows to the actuator to operate the hydraulically actuated subsea valve”.
However, Noel discloses:
“wherein the differential pressure is measured during a period of time when the hydraulic fluid flows to the actuator to operate the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0049 – “in the FIG. 9 embodiment, one only action on the relief valve 83 simultaneously biases the feed pressure (i.e. when the hydraulic fluid flows to the actuator, added by examiner) and the reference pressure on monitoring valve 10, thus keeping the pressure difference between the sensing line 9 (i.e. the result of the pressure measurement, added by examiner) and the reference line 40 at least substantially constant, and thus keeping the percussion pressure unaffected”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination, as taught by Noel, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve more accurate.
Regarding Claim 7: Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray/Noel combination discloses the method of Claim 5.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the hydraulically actuated subsea valve.
Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the differential pressure is measured during a period of time when the hydraulic fluid flows out of the actuator to operate the hydraulic valve”.
However, Noel discloses:
“wherein the differential pressure is measured during a period of time when the hydraulic fluid flows out of the actuator to operate the hydraulic valve” (para 0035 – “The monitoring valve 10 shown in FIG. 3 operates like a pressure-relief valve. When the pressure of the load-sense circuit 6′ pushes the slide 20 (interpreted as the valve’s actuator, added by examiner) to direction A, the connection between the discharge channel 11 and load-sense circuit 6′ opens.(i.e. hydraulic fluid flows out of the actuator, added by examiner) ”; para 0036 – “By mounting a monitoring valve with a different pressure ratio in the hydraulic system, it is possible to change the ratio control of a first actuator (it is the system actuator, not the valve actuator, added by examiner)”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination, as taught by Noel, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulic valve more accurate.
Regarding Claim 17: Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray/Noel combination discloses the system of Claim 16.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the hydraulically actuated subsea valve.
Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination does not explicitly disclose:
“wherein the algorithm receives as an input a differential of values of the measurements of the parameter taken at substantially the same time”.
However, Noel discloses:
“wherein the algorithm receives as an input a differential of values of the measurements of the parameter taken at substantially the same time” (para 0035 – “The monitoring valve 10 shown in FIG. 3 operates like a pressure-relief valve. When the pressure of the load-sense circuit 6′ pushes the slide 20 (interpreted as the valve’s actuator, added by examiner) to direction A, the connection between the discharge channel 11 and load-sense circuit 6′ opens.(i.e. hydraulic fluid flows out of the actuator, added by examiner) ”; para 0036 – “By mounting a monitoring valve with a different pressure ratio in the hydraulic system, it is possible to change the ratio control of a first actuator (it is the system actuator, not the valve actuator, added by examiner)”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737/Gray combination, as taught by Noel, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulic valve more accurate.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach’231/Leach’737 combination in view of Gray.
Regarding Claim 16: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the system of Claim 12.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the network of hydraulic lines comprises a control valve, a main line, a regulator, an inlet line, and a discharge line, and wherein the plurality of sensor devices comprises a first sensor that monitors the parameter at the main line of the network of hydraulic lines, a second sensor device that monitors the parameter at the inlet line of the network of hydraulic lines, and a third sensor device that monitors the parameter at the discharge line of the network of hydraulic lines”.
However, Gray discloses:
“wherein the network of hydraulic lines comprises a control valve” (claim 14 – “wherein each of the hydraulic circuits comprises an electrically-driven directional control valve”),
“a main line” (para 0014 – “the assembly can comprise a manifold (i.e. main line, added by examiner) having the one or more flow inlets and having one or more flow outlets”),
“a regulator” (para 0112 – “rig air supply 172 for the circuits 180 a-b is split and passes through filter-regulator-lubricator components 181 a-b to pneumatic pumps 186 a-b.”),
“an inlet line” (para 0014 – “The one or more flow inlets can be disposed in fluid communication with an upstream portion of the drilling system and can receive the fluid flow therefrom”), and
“a discharge line” (para 0014 – “The one or more flow outlets can be disposed in fluid communication with a downstream portion of the drilling system and can deliver the fluid flow thereto.”)
“wherein the plurality of sensor devices comprises a first sensor that monitors the parameter at the main line of the network of hydraulic lines” (para 0016 – “the assembly can further comprise a plurality of sensors distributed in the hydraulic circuits and measuring a plurality of operational parameters”; para 0017 – “A first of the sensors can comprise a first pressure transducer measuring pressure of the pneumatic supply as one of the operational parameters”),
“a second sensor device that monitors the parameter at the inlet line of the network of hydraulic lines” (para 0017 – “a second of the sensors can comprise a second pressure transducer measuring the common hydraulic input as one of the operational parameters.”), and
“a third sensor device that monitors the parameter at the discharge line of the network of hydraulic lines” (para 0018 – “a third of the sensors can comprise a third pressure transducer measuring pressure of the hydraulic motive force (interpreted as a discharge line, added by examiner) to a first the pressure relief valves as one of the operational parameters.”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737 combination, as taught by Gray, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve more accurate.
Regarding Claim 18: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the system of Claim 12.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the hydraulically actuated subsea valve.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is a gate valve”.
However, Gray discloses:
“wherein the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is a gate valve” (para 0074 – “the manifold 60 includes a number of solenoid actuated gate valves 66”).
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 method disclosed by Leach’231/Leach’737 combination, as taught by Gray, in order to make the evaluation of the state of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve more accurate.
Regarding Claim 19: Leach’231/Leach’737 combination discloses the system of Claim 12.
Leach’231/Leach’737 combination does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the network of hydraulic lines comprises a control valve, a main line, a regulator, an inlet line, and a discharge line, and wherein the plurality of sensor devices, the control valve, the inlet line, and the discharge line are located under water”.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the network of hydraulic lines comprises a control valve, a main line, a regulator, an inlet line, and a discharge line, and wherein the plurality of sensor devices, the control valve, the inlet line, and the discharge line are located under water”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that during the subsea operations, all the significant parts of the system, including lines, valves, and sensors would be located under water (specifically, sea water).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Leach’231 and in further view of Leach’737.
Regarding Claim 20: Gray discloses:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by a computer processor, enables the computer processor to:” (para 0060 – “ Software components of the control system 50 (i.e. non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable program code, added by examiner) then compares the flow rate in and out of the wellbore 18, the injection pressure (or standpipe pressure), the surface backpressure (measured upstream from the drilling chokes 72), the position of the chokes 72, and the mud density, among other possible variables.)
“facilitate obtaining, in real time, a plurality of values associated with measurements of a parameter, wherein the measurements are measured by a plurality of sensor devices” (para 0015 – “the assembly can further comprise sensors communicatively connected to the controllers and providing readings for the pressure level measurement (i.e. values of a pressure parameter, added by examiner) of the drilling system”; para 0016 – “the assembly can further comprise a plurality of sensors distributed in the hydraulic circuits and measuring a plurality of operational parameters”);
“wherein the plurality of sensor devices are configured to measure the parameter at a plurality of locations along a network of hydraulic lines that circulates a hydraulic fluid with respect to an actuator of the hydraulic valve” (paras 0015 and 0016 disclose the plurality of sensor devices measuring the plurality of pressure parameter at a plurality of locations; para 0046 – “A hydraulic power unit 31 a on the rig 12 can connect by control lines 31 b to the rotating control device 30 to control its operation. The control lines 31 b can carry supply and/or return of hydraulic fluid (i.e. network of hydraulic lines, added by examiner) to and from the rotating control device 30 for its operation.”; para 0098 – “Operation of the valve 64 is achieved via the hydraulic actuator 168 integral to the plug 160. The air-driven hydraulic power unit (130: FIG. 2A) provides motive force to the actuator 168 via the ports 159 a-b.”), and
“wherein the parameter is associated with an actuator of the hydraulic valve during a subterranean field operation” para 0042 – “The drilling system 10 is depicted for use offshore on a rig 12, such as a floating, fixed, or semi-submersible platform (i.e. performing the subterranean field operation, added by examiner) or vessel known in the art”; para 0096 – “FIG. 4 schematically illustrates a plug type valve that can be used for the system's pressure (i.e. parameter, added by examiner) relief valve 64. The valve 64 includes a body 150, a plug 160, and a hydraulic actuator 168.”).
Gray does not specifically disclose “the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” and “facilitate executing, in real time, an algorithm using the plurality of the measurements to generate a result; facilitate comparing, in real time, the result of the algorithm with a range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, wherein the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is based on a signature of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the signature is established using prior results of the algorithm; facilitate determining that the hydraulic valve has a potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve; facilitate determining, in real time, that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve; and facilitate sending, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, a notification to an operator, wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation”.
However, Leach’231 discloses:
“the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (para 0010 – “one or more valve assemblies, each having a conduit defining an inlet configured to be in fluid communication with a pressure source, an outlet configured to be in fluid communication with a respective hydraulically-actuated device, and a vent configured to be in fluid communication with a reservoir and/or a subsea environment”);
“facilitate executing, in real time, an algorithm using the plurality of the measurements to generate a result; facilitate comparing, in real time, the result of the algorithm with a range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, wherein the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve is based on a signature of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve, and wherein the signature is established using prior results of the algorithm” (para 0043 – “At step 98, data indicative of one or more actual system parameters can be captured (e.g., using sensor(s) 74). Such actual system parameter(s) can include any suitable parameter, such as, for example, any one or more of those described above with respect to sensor(s) 74. At step 102, the actual system parameter(s) can be compared to corresponding expected system parameter(s) (i.e. acceptable values, added by examiner). Such expected system parameter(s) can include, for example, known, (i.e. established using prior results, added by examiner) minimum, maximum, calculated (i.e. the result of executing the algorithm, added by examiner), commanded, and/or historical value(s));
“facilitate determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has a potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve; facilitate determining, in real time, that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure when the result falls outside the range of acceptable values for the hydraulically actuated subsea valve” (Para 0043 – “At step 106, fault(s) can be detected. For example, a fault can be detected if difference(s) between the actual and expected system parameter(s) exceed a threshold (e.g., the actual and expected system parameter(s) differ by 1, 5, 10, 15, 20% or more), a time rate of change of an actual system parameter (which may itself be a system parameter) is below or exceeds a threshold, an actual system parameter is below a minimum value or exceeds a maximum value, and/or the like. Further, a fault may be detected if, for example, a majority of (e.g., two out of three) sensor(s) 74 participating in a voting scheme capture data that indicates a fault”);
“facilitate sending, in real time and in response to determining that the hydraulically actuated subsea valve has the potential failure, a notification to an operator” (para 0043 – “Faults detected at step 106 can be communicated (i.e. sending a notification, added by examiner) to an above-sea control station,(i.e. to an operator, added by examiner) stored in a memory, and/or the like.”).
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 method, disclosed by Gray, as taught by Leach’231, in order to improve the safety of the subterranean field operation.
Gray/Leach’231 combination does not specifically disclose:
“wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation”.
However, Leach’737 discloses:
“wherein the notification comprises information about the potential failure of the hydraulically actuated subsea valve during the subterranean field operation, and wherein the information in the notification is used to alter the subterranean field operation” (Fig. 2; para 0056 – “During step 142, system parameter value(s) can be sensed, compared to expected system parameter value(s), and fault(s) can be identified and/or detected in a same or substantially similar fashion to as described above for steps 132, 136, and 140”; step 142 – “Move the piston of the hydraulically-actuated device to a maximum second position (i.e. alter the subterranean filed operation, added by examiner)”).
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 method, disclosed by Gray/Leach’231 combination, as taught by Leach’737, in order to improve the safety of the subterranean field operation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857