DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 27 April 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) Rejection of Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding both written description and enablement rejections, applicant argues support for one embodiment is sufficient to describe and enable other embodiments of detection of suspected key seating wear events. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See MPEP 2163.03.V. The propriety of a rejection based upon the scope of a claim relative to the scope of the enablement concerns (1) how broad the claim is with respect to the disclosure and (2) whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See MPEP 2164.08.
In the present case, the claim language is broad such that it captures all embodiments recited in the specification, yet a single embodiment is only adequately described and enabled. The specification discloses detecting key seating can be determined by applying frequency filters to separate out expected noise [0053 of the filed specification]. The filters can be determined according to drilling system configuration [0053]. A confirmation that the data lies outside of the expected frequency range may represent key seating wear [0053]. The specification does not describe how the filters are selected e.g. according to either expected noise or by drilling system configuration. The specification also does not disclose what elements are considered when determining the drilling system configuration and how those elements affect sensed frequencies. Furthermore, in the case where known key seating data is not used, the specification does not disclose how the remaining data pertains only to key seating wear and not any other source e.g. other types of damage/wear/corrosion/defects, particulate present in drilling mud, and/or external sound sources e.g. thrusters, animals. Further, attempting to account for every form of vibration/noise in a drill system and/or drilling rig is undo experimentation as it amounts to individually isolating components to determine their vibration signature so that they would not be alerted as key seating wear would be unreasonable.
Regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant argues Wu does not disclose detecting vibrations in an underwater drilling structure or the sensor disposed on underwater structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111.
Wu teaches the sensor (136) is located downhole on a drill string (Figure 1) where the system can be incorporated so subsea operations [0019], thus meeting the instant claim limitations.
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., the vibrations sensed are from waves travelling in the solid mechanical drill structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, the claims recite “the controller configured to … process the data to detect a suspected key seating wear event”. The specification discloses detecting key seating can be determined by applying frequency filters to separate out expected noise [0053 of the filed specification]. The filters can be determined according to drilling system configuration [0053]. A confirmation that the data lies outside of the expected frequency range may represent key seating wear [0053]. The remaining data can also be compared to known key seating data to confirm key seating wear [0053].
The specification does not describe how the filters are selected e.g. according to either expected noise or by drilling system configuration. The specification also does not disclose what elements are considered when determining the drilling system configuration and how those elements affect sensed frequencies. Furthermore, in the case where known key seating data is not used, the specification does not disclose how the remaining data pertains only to key seating wear and not any other source e.g. other types of damage/wear/corrosion/defects, particulate present in drilling mud, and/or external sound sources e.g. thrusters, animals.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Similar can be said with respect to Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, and the limitation “processing the vibration data … to detect the suspected key seating wear event by filtering the data to detect an anomaly that corresponds to key seating wear” of Claim 12.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, the recite “the controller configured to … process the data to detect a suspected key seating wear event”. The specification discloses detecting key seating can be determined by applying frequency filters to separate out expected noise [0053]. The filters can be determined according to drilling system configuration [0053]. A confirmation that the data lies outside of the expected frequency range may represent key seating wear [0053]. The remaining data can also be compared to known key seating data to confirm key seating wear [0053].
The specification does not describe how the filters are selected e.g. according to either expected noise or by drilling system configuration. The specification also does not disclose what elements are considered when determining the drilling system configuration and how those elements affect sensed frequencies. Furthermore, in the case where known key seating data is not used, the specification does not disclose how the remaining data pertains only to key seating wear and not any other source e.g. other types of damage/wear/corrosion/defects, particulate present in drilling mud, and/or external sound sources e.g. thrusters, animals.
Turning to the Wands factors, the only guidance provided in the specification is highly generic where Figure 4 illustrates a baseline and Figure 7 illustrates key seating where being present as a group of frequencies not present in the baseline. This illustration does not resolve the aforementioned issues. No working examples are provided nor are any located in the art.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Similar can be said with respect to Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19, and the limitation “processing the vibration data … to detect the suspected key seating wear event by filtering the data to detect an anomaly that corresponds to key seating wear” of Claim 12.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
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 – 5, 8, 11 – 15, 17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2021/0148218).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a system for detecting key seating wear during drilling operations, comprising: a sensor (136) configured to detect vibrations in an underwater drilling structure [0019, 0023]; and a controller (141) operably connected to the sensor, the controller configured to receive data from the sensor and to process the data to detect a suspected key seating wear event [0024, 0027].
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the sensor is one of a plurality of sensors [0032], each of the plurality of sensors being configured to detect vibrations in an underwater drilling structure and operably connected to the controller [0019, 0024, 0027].
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the controller is configured to send an alert to a user when key seating wear is detected [0026 – 0028].
Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses a display (142) operably connected to the controller [0026], the controller being configured to use the display to alert the user to the suspected key seating wear event [0026 – 0028].
Regarding Claim 5, Wu discloses the controller configured to use the sensor to record a baseline data set when key seating wear is not present (the sensors records data both when wear is present and is not present) [0027].
Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses a signal injector (136) controlled by the controller, wherein the signal injector is configured to transmit a frequency signal into a drill pipe (there is nothing preventing the acoustic pressure pulse from entering the drill pipe) [0023].
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses an offshore drilling system, comprising: a drill platform [0019]; and the system for detecting key seating wear of claim 1 (See rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu discloses a method for detecting a suspected key seating wear event in drilling operations, comprising: recording vibration data in an underwater structure during drilling operations using a sensor (136) disposed on the underwater structure [0019, 0023]; processing the vibration data from the sensor at a controller (141) operably connected to the sensors to detect the suspected key seating wear event by filtering the data (circle fitting scheme) to detect an anomaly that corresponds to key seating wear [0017, 0024, 0027].
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses recording vibration data further comprises receiving data from a plurality of sensors [0032], each of the plurality of sensors being configured to detect vibrations in an underwater drilling structure and operably connected to the controller [0019, 0024, 0027].
Regarding Claim 14, Wu discloses using a display (142) operably connected to the controller to alert a user to the suspected key seating wear event [0026 – 0028].
Regarding Claim 15, Wu discloses using the sensor to record a baseline data set when key seating wear is not present (the sensors records data both when wear is present and is not present) [0027].
Regarding Claim 17, Wu discloses using a signal injector (136) controlled by the controller to inject the frequency signal into a drill pipe (there is nothing preventing the acoustic pressure pulse from entering the drill pipe) [0023].
Regarding Claim 20, Wu discloses a key seating detector for offshore drilling, comprising: a sensor (136) configured to detect vibrations in an underwater drilling structure [0019, 0023]; and a controller (141) disposed on a drill platform (Figure 1, 2) and operably connected to the sensor, the controller configured to receive data from the sensor and to process the data to detect a suspected key seating wear event [0024, 0027], and an alert (142) device operably connected to the controller [0026], the controller being configured to use the alert device to alert a user to key seating wear [0026 – 0028].
Regarding Claim 21, Wu discloses the alert device comprises a display (142) [0026].
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0148218).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu fails to expressly disclose the underwater drilling structure is selected from the group consisting of a drilling riser and a lower marine riser package.
Wu does disclose utilizing the system in subsea operations that employ floating or sea-based platforms and rigs [0019]. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art that these platforms and rigs include a drilling riser and a lower marine riser package.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu so that the underwater drilling structure is selected from the group consisting of a drilling riser and a lower marine riser package for the benefit of detecting key seats in those systems as well, as taught by Wu [0015, 0019].
Allowable Subject Matter
A proper search and determination of allowable subject matter on claims not provided with a prior art rejection was not possible due to the 112(a) Rejections outlined above. Upon applicant' s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner and upon the Examiner's better understanding of the invention a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
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 ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights