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 .
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 key seating wear”. 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 key seating wear 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 claims recite “the controller configured to … process the data to detect key seating wear”. 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 key seating wear 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “the controller configured to detect the vibrational signal”. It is unclear as to if this signal is the same as the vibrations of Claim 1 or some additional signal, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites “detecting the vibrational signal using the sensor”. It is unclear as to if this signal is the same as the vibration data of Claim 12 or some additional signal, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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 key seating wear [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 key seating wear [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 and configured to transmit a vibrational 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 key seating wear 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 key seating wear 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 key seating wear [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 a vibrational 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 key seating wear [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) and 112(b) 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
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