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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic benefit based on an provisional application 63/451,865 filed on March 13, 2023 and Parent non-provisional application 18/603,738 (now US Patent No. 12,104,477). However, the provisional application ‘865 may not be supporting to the independent claim limitations.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Group I, drawn to Claims 1 – 15, are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions and a well system comprising a control sub-system that have similar elements. Group I is directed to transitioning well system equipment from a current equipment state to a target equipment state by blocking or enabling a second operator to precede with a next operation.
Group II, drawn to Claims 16 – 20, is directed to a well system that discloses sensor feedback and determine if a sensor timeout has been reached before transitioning the well equipment from a current state to a target equipment state.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination and there would be a search burden as sensor feedback is and determining a sensor timeout before transitioning a well system to a target state is a different search and classification. The inventions are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one Group is separately usable. In the instant case, Group II has separate utility such as using automated sensor equipment in the well system rather than coordination with well operators. See MPEP § 806.05(d)
The examiner has required restriction between the combinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claims depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reasons apply:
• the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
• the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
• the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
• the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or
• the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. §101 and/or 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
In this case a call was made to attorney of record Conrad Hsu who elected claims 1 – 15; and 16 – 20 are the non-elected clams.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,104,477. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are simple changes of a statutory category. A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claims at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the U.S. Patent. Comparisons of claim 1 in the instant application is shown in the following table. The other claims may also be mapped to similar claims in the patent.
Claims in instant App: 18/793,067
Claims in US Patent 12,104,477
1. A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions executable by processing circuitry of a control sub-system in a well system, wherein the instruction comprise instructions to:
determine, using the processing circuitry, whether a request to perform a next operation associated with a first operator has been received,
wherein the next operation comprises transitioning well system equipment from a current equipment state to a target equipment state;
determine, using the processing circuitry, whether a completion confirmation associated with a preceding operation has been received from a second operator when the request to perform the next operation associated with the first operator has been received;
block, using the processing circuitry, performance of the next operation associated with the first operator via the control sub-system when the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has not been received from the second operator;
and permit, using the processing circuitry, performance of the next operation associated with the first operator via the control sub-system when the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has been received from the second operator.
1. A method of coordinating performance of operations in a well system, comprising:
receiving, using a central controller of a control sub-system, a request to perform a next operation associated with a first operator that includes changing well system equipment from a current equipment state to a target equipment state from a first operator device that is assigned to and associated with the first operator;
determining, using the central controller, whether completion confirmation of a preceding operation associated with a second operator has been received from a second operator device that is assigned to and associated with the second operator;
in response to determining that the completion confirmation of the preceding operation associated with the second operator has not been received from the second operator device, blocking, using the central controller, the first operator from performing the next operation to change the well system equipment from the current equipment state to the target equipment state from the first operator device;
and in response to determining that the completion confirmation of the preceding operation associated with the second operation has been received from the second operator device, permitting, using the central controller, performance of the next operation associated with the first operator at least in part by enabling the well system equipment to be changed from the current equipment state to the target equipment state from the first operator device..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 4 discloses the element of: “the instructions to block performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instruction to block the first operator from transitioning the well system equipment from the current equipment state to the target equipment state from a second operator device in the control sub-system…” The meaning or role of the second operator is indefinite. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, wherein in claim 1 the second operator is performing operations. It is unclear by the meaning of claim 4 whether the second operator is performing operations or is performing a monitoring and/or control/managerial role over the first operator. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 5 discloses the element of: “when the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has not been received or the request finalization has not been received;…” This may not be consistent with the last element that states: “when the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has been received and the request finalization has been received.” The meaning or role of the second operator is indefinite. Applicant review is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Braniff et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20220341309), herein “Braniff.”
Regarding claim 1,
Braniff1 teaches a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions executable by processing circuitry of a control sub-system in a well system, (Par. 0156: “In this respect, various inventive concepts may be embodied as a computer readable storage medium (or multiple computer readable storage media) (e.g., a computer memory, one or more floppy discs, compact discs, optical discs, magnetic tapes, flash memories, circuit configurations in Field Programmable Gate Arrays or other semiconductor devices, or other non-transitory medium or tangible computer storage medium) encoded with one or more programs that, when executed on one or more computers or other processors, perform methods that implement the various embodiments of the invention discussed above.” See Par. 0006.)
wherein the instruction comprise instructions to: determine, using the processing circuitry, whether a request to perform a next operation associated with a first operator has been received, (Par. 0099: “In an example embodiment, when DCL 175 generates the machine-readable output, the output is produced according to the known interface capabilities of the individual machines. For example, output commands for an iron roughneck (represented as analog or digital signals) may be similar to the ones issued by a human operator when the human operator is controlling the iron roughneck. In some cases, commands issued by the human operator (e.g., when the human operator is controlling the iron roughneck using a joystick) may be recorded using a recording mode. Using such a mode, system 200 is configured to learn operational signals resulted when performing standard operations. It should be noted that some commands may encapsulate a large number of sub-command steps (e.g., latching a drill pipe).”)
wherein the next operation comprises transitioning well system equipment from a current equipment state to a target equipment state; (Par. 0129: “Further, in various embodiments, e-program 161B and/or e-program 161A is configured to manage changes to well operations plan 170 via a suitable MC process and re-optimize well operations plan 170 based on modifications to well operations plan 170. Further, e-program 161B and/or 161A is configured to re-submit new optimized well operations plan 170 to synchronize with new optimized well operations plan 170 with the current state of operations performed during well construction.”)
determine, using the processing circuitry, whether a completion confirmation associated with a preceding operation has been received from a second operator when the request to perform the next operation associated with the first operator has been received; (Par. 0130: “In various embodiments, well operations plan 170 may include at least some operations that are performed by a human operator. In various cases, operations performed by a human operator are interleaved with operations performed by rig equipment. For example, BOP tests (that can be automated by the DCL 175) can only be done after a human operator performs latching up the BOP to the wellhead (which is an operation that is typically performed by a human operator). In various cases, e-program 161B (or SWA 165B) keeps track of confirmations from people and rig equipment 180 and verifies that all steps are followed. Further, e-program 161B (or SWA 165B) is configured to issue a warning or prevent an execution of a next operation without the necessary confirmations received from a human operator or from rig equipment 180.”)
block, using the processing circuitry, performance of the next operation associated with the first operator via the control sub-system when the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has not been received from the second operator; (Par. 0130 – See above quotation that prevents execution of the next operation without confirmation by an operator. See also Par. 0134 – operators confirming sequence of steps.)
permit, using the processing circuitry, performance of the next operation associated with the first operator via the control sub-system when the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has been received from the second operator. (Par. 0130 – See above quotation. Examiner’s Note – as stated in paragraph 0130, the first/previous or BOP tests may be performed by a human or automated by the drilling control layer (DCL). )
Regarding claim 3,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 2 depends. Braniff also teaches that the instructions to block performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instructions to block the first operator from transitioning the well system equipment from the current equipment state to the target equipment state from a first operator device in the control sub-system; the instructions to permit performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instructions to permit the first operator to transition the well system equipment from the current equipment state to the target equipment state from the first operator device in the control sub-system; and the instructions to determine whether the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has been received from the second operator comprise instructions to determine whether the completion confirmation associated with the preceding operation has been received from a second operator device (such as a joystick) in the control sub-system. (Par. 0130: “In various embodiments, well operations plan 170 may include at least some operations that are performed by a human operator. In various cases, operations performed by a human operator are interleaved with operations performed by rig equipment. For example, BOP tests (that can be automated by the DCL 175) can only be done after a human operator performs latching up the BOP to the wellhead (which is an operation that is typically performed by a human operator). In various cases, e-program 161B (or SWA 165B) keeps track of confirmations from people and rig equipment 180 and verifies that all steps are followed. Further, e-program 161B (or SWA 165B) is configured to issue a warning or prevent an execution of a next operation without the necessary confirmations received from a human operator or from rig equipment 180.” Par. 0099: “…commands issued by the human operator (e.g., when the human operator is controlling the iron roughneck using a joystick)...”)
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.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braniff in view of Boone et al. (PG Pub. No. 20170229869), herein “Boone.”
Regarding claim 7,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 2 depends. Braniff does not teach adjusting power of a sub-system. However, Boone does teach that the instructions to permit performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instructions to permit a power sub-system in the well system to adjust power supplied to the well system equipment to facilitate transitioning the well system equipment from the current equipment state to the target equipment state. (Par. 0014: “…control stations 22 allowing one or more operators to operate the electrical equipment 17 during operations of drill rig 15a-c.” Claim 11: “…wherein the micro grid controller is adapted to modify one or more of the first operator command and the second operator commands based at least in part on a determined available power capacity of the micro grid.” See also Par. 0021 and claim 11 – teaching first and second operator; and claim 12.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the computer readable medium in a well boring system that stops a sequence of steps in an operator until the previous operation has completed as in Braniff with having two operators wherein the commands of the operators control inputs and/or depend on power capacity of the drilling rig as in Boone in order to prioritize the operations for operators of the drill rig system by adjusting operator commands. (Par. 0031 and claim 12)
Regarding claim 8, it is directed to a well system with similar elements of claim 1. Braniff also teaches a central controller (Par. 0098: “As shown in FIG. 2, well operations plan 170 is transmitted by e-program 161B to DCL 175. DCL 175 is a controller including software instructions and computing means (e.g., a processor having a memory for storing the software instructions as well as various related data needed for operating DCL 175) for transforming instructions presented in well operations plan 170 into specific operational instructions for rig equipment 180. Braniff does not explicitly teach a power sub-system to control power to the well equipment. However, Boone teaches the control sub-system is configured to be communicatively coupled to a power sub-system that selectively supplies power to well system equipment (Par. 0004: “The micro grid may include a micro grid controller. The micro grid controller may be in communication with each rig controller and may be adapted to receive from each rig controller one or more operational parameters relating to the electrical power draw of the one or more pieces of electrical equipment. The micro grid controller may be adapted to control the rig controllers at least partially in response to the power draw of the micro grid on the power supply line.” Therefore, Braniff and Boone teach the system or apparatuses, similar to elements in claim 1, of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 8 which claim 9 depends. Boone also teaches that the first operator device comprises: a first electronic display configured to display a visual representation of the current equipment state, the target equipment state, or both; and a first user input device configured to enable the first operator to request performance of the next operation; and the second operator device comprises: a second electronic display configured to display a prompt requesting that the second operator confirm completion of the preceding operation; and a second user input device configured to enable the second operator to respond to the prompt. (Par. 0011: “As depicted in FIG. 1, oil field 10 may include one or more drilling rigs 15. Each drilling rig 15 may include electrical equipment 17 including, but not limited to, drawworks, mud pumps, hydraulic pumps, top drives, winches, hydraulic pumps, and lighting. In some embodiments, each drilling rig 15 may include rig controller 19 adapted to control the operating conditions of some or all of electrical equipment 17, monitor the operation of some or all of electrical equipment 17 of drilling rig 15, receive instructions from control station 22, receive instructions from micro grid controller 109, and communicate data regarding electrical equipment 17. Rig controller 19 may include a user interface, a microprocessor, and memory. The memory of rig controller 19 may include a non-transitory computer readable medium for storage of instructions for control and monitoring of electrical equipment 17 of drilling rig 15.” See also Par. 0014 and 0015; and claims 10, 11, and 12 of Boone.)
Regarding claim 12,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 8 which claim 12 depends. Braniff also teaches that the first operator device comprises a first mobile device, a first tablet computer, a first laptop computer, or a first skid-mounted human-machine interface; and the second operator device comprises a second mobile device, a second tablet computer, a second laptop computer, or a second skid-mounted human-machine interface. (Par. 0126: “In an example embodiment, a human operator (a driller) monitors the progress and can intervene if necessary, however DCL 175 is configured to interface and control any suitable rig equipment including the BOP, the vessel management system (VMS), the deck cranes and all other applicable rig systems.” See also Boone Par. 0014: “Rig controller 19 may, as understood in the art, be electrically coupled to one or more control stations 22 allowing one or more operators to operate the electrical equipment 17 during operations of drill rig 15a-c. Control station 22 may include any equipment to control electrical equipment 17, either manually or through such computer controls as a graphical user interface (GUI).” And Boone claims 10 – 13 that teach first and second operators.)
Regarding claim 14,
The previously cited reference(s) teach the limitations of claim 8 which claim 8 depends. However, Boone also teaches that the control sub-system is configured to facilitate performing the next operation in the well system at least in part by instructing the power sub-system to adjust power supplied to a fluid valve to enable the fluid valve to transition from a current valve state to a target valve state. (Par. 0014: “…control stations 22 allowing one or more operators to operate the electrical equipment 17 during operations of drill rig 15a-c.” Claim 11: “…wherein the micro grid controller is adapted to modify one or more of the first operator command and the second operator commands based at least in part on a determined available power capacity of the micro grid.” See also Par. 0021 and claim 11 – teaching first and second operator; and claim 12.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolving all intervening issues such as a double patent rejection and/or 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 1 and wherein: the instructions to block performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instructions to maintain a lockout on the first operator to block the first operator from transitioning a fluid valve from a current valve state to a target valve state via the control sub-system; and the instructions to permit performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instructions to remove the lockout from the first operator permit the first operator to transition the fluid valve from the current valve state to the target valve state via the control sub-system.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolving all intervening issues such as a double patent rejection and/or 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 1 and wherein the instructions to permit performance of the next operation associated with the first operator comprise instructions to: maintain a lockout on the first operator; and automatically perform the next operation associated with the first operator at least in part by automatically instructing the well system to transition the well system equipment from the current equipment state to the target equipment state.
Similar to claim 2, claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolving all intervening issues such as a double patent rejection and/or 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The claim elements are similar in scope as those elements stated above for claim 2.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolving all intervening issues such as a double patent rejection and/or 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 8 and wherein the first operator device is configured to enable the first operator to finalize the request to perform the next operation in the well system after the second operator has confirmed completion of the preceding operation; and the control sub-system is configured to: cancel the request to perform the next operation when the first operator does not finalize the request to perform the next operation; and when the first operator finalizes the request to perform the next operation, facilitate performing the next operation in the well system at least in part by instructing the power sub-system to adjust power supplied to the well system equipment to enable the well system equipment to transition from the current equipment state to the target equipment state.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolving all intervening issues such as a double patent rejection and/or 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance pending final recitation of the claims. The prior art does not disclose the elements of claim 8 and a sensor feedback indicative of the current valve state of the fluid valve; and determine whether the sensor feedback indicates that the fluid valve has achieved the target valve state before a sensor timeout is reached; at an earlier of the sensor feedback indicating that the fluid valve has achieved the target valve state and the sensor timeout being reached, instructing the power sub-system to adjust power supplied to other well system equipment to enable the other well system equipment to transition from another current equipment state to another target equipment state; and indicate that the equipment sensor is potentially faulty if the sensor timeout is reached. Some prior art such as Allen (US PG Pub. No. 20210381315) teaches a feedback from sensors and a timeout of those sensors (Par. 0051). However, neither Allen or other prior art teaches sensor feedback indicative of the current valve state of the fluid valve; and determine whether the sensor feedback indicates that the fluid valve has achieved the target valve state before a sensor timeout is reached and at an earlier of the sensor feedback indicating that the fluid valve has achieved the target valve state and the sensor timeout being reached, instructing the power sub-system to adjust power supplied to other well system equipment to enable the other well system equipment to transition from another current equipment state to another target equipment state; and indicate that the equipment sensor is potentially faulty if the sensor timeout is reached.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Allen (US PG Pub. No. 20210381315), cited above for teaching only some elements of claim 15. Allen teaches a feedback from sensors and a timeout of those sensors (Par. 0051). Allen does not teach a fluid valve that has achieved a target valve state.
Maida (US PG Pub. No. 20100004776), teaches in an production factory (wherein the process might be used for a drilling well), a waiting operation for the next operation of an operator to be performed. See most pertinent paragraph 0138, and the Abstract and paragraphs: 0015, 0024 – 0026, 0029, 0060 – 0064, 0072 – 0074, 0077 – 0083, 0142, 0147, 0150, 0167, 0168, 0184, 0185 and claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
1 Examiner’s Note – Braniff was found in PE2E Search in search line L20 and L21.
Prosecution Insights