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 . 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
First piston face and second piston face in claim 5 must be shown on the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The “means for detecting a change in condition” should state “means for detecting a chamber in a condition” in the independent claims 1,13, and 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means in claims 1 and 13.
There is not clear citation in the spec for “means”, but based on the specification and drawings there are sensor 30, transducers 130/230 and pressure transducers 113/128/214/228 disclosed as detectors.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 7-15 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 claim 1 and 13, “means for” have been interpreted under 112(f) above. Under the interpretation, the “means” are for detecting a change in condition in the fluid chamber as sensor 30, transducers 130/230 and pressure transducers 113/128/214/228 are disclosed as detectors. However, there is not support (written description) for pressure sensor, capable of being the “means for” detecting a change in condition in the fluid chamber indicative of a change in volume of the seal element.
The “means for” statements in the claims are not clearly matched up with the disclosed structure (sensors/transducers/whatever) in the specification capable of performing the function “for detecting a change in condition in the fluid chamber “. The only disclosed structure capable of determining a volume change in the “fluid chamber” is a linear transducer 130, which measures the position of the piston in the fluid chamber, and this is directly proportional to a volume change of the fluid chamber. However, measuring a pressure in the fluid chamber will not indicate a volume change in the sealing element, so it cannot be part of the “means for” statement, that is, structure capable of performing the function. it appears that only the linear transducer is capable of this, but specification discloses sensor “30” in Figs 1A & 1B just sort of “floating” in the fluid chamber, and as such, it must be pressure or temperature sensor. The specification discloses the linear transducer 130 in Fig. 2. Figs. 3 and 4 are some other embodiments with the linear transducer 230 on the outside of the fluid chamber. therefore, there appears to be support for detecting a volume change in the fluid chamber (via a linear transducer) that is directly proportional to a volume change in the sealing element, but not support for a pressure sensor to determine the volume change.
Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph. see MPEP 2181. IV.C. As such, the claims are rejected for lack of written description and enablement requirements for “means”.
Turning to MPEP 2164.01(a), i.e., the Wands factors, Examiner finds the breath of the claims, the amount of direction provided by the inventor are sufficient evidences that the disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement, and undue experimentation would be required.
Examiner notes that if “means” in claims 1 and 13 is amended to specifically claim the means that is supported by the specification, the above 112 (a) will be overcome.
Remaining claims are rejected at least because of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, 7-15 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 1 and 13, “means for” have been interpreted under 112(f) above. Under the interpretation, the “means” are for detecting a change in condition in the fluid chamber as sensor 30, transducers 130/230 and pressure transducers 113/128/214/228 are disclosed as detectors.
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2181.II.A. Here, the “means for” statements in the claims 1 and 13 are not clearly matched up with the structure (sensors/transducers/whatever) capable of performing the function “detecting a change in condition in the fluid chamber indicative of a change in volume of the seal element of the sealing device”. The only disclosed structure capable of determining a volume change in the “fluid chamber” is a linear transducer 130, which measures the position of the piston in the fluid chamber, and this is directly proportional to a volume change of the fluid chamber. However, measuring a pressure in the fluid chamber will not indicate a volume change in the sealing element, so it cannot be part of the “means for” statement, that is, structure capable of performing the function. It’s unclear as to what exactly is/are the “condition(s)” that are being detected by the “means” that is “indicative of change in volume” of the seal element”. Which sensor/transducer is doing this, and how is it indicative” of the volume change, it appears that only the linear transducer is capable of this, but the specification discloses sensor “30” in Figs 1A & 1B just sort of “floating” in the fluid chamber, and as such, it must be pressure or temperature sensor, the specification discloses the linear transducer 130 in Fig. 2., Figs. 3 and 4 are some other embodiments with the linear transducer 230 on the outside of the fluid chamber. Regardless, it’s not clear what the “condition” is that is being recited. The specification only discloses: it may be “a change in pressure in the fluid chamber,” which may be used to determine a change in volume of the sealing element, but never discloses any algorithm or steps for making pressure measurements in the chamber and equating/determining a volume change in the sealing element. The specification discloses it may be a ‘depleted condition” which is related to volume and/or pressure measurements, but it’s not clear. Only the “Summary” and the “claims” taking about these detected “conditions” and do not appear at all in the “Detailed Description” making it the claimed invention confusing and indefinite.
Examiner notes that if “means” in claims 1 and 13 is amended to specifically claim the supported means by the specification, the above 112 (b) will be overcome.
Remaining claims are rejected at least due to their dependency to independent claims.
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, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20170107782 A1, “Mckenzie”1.
Claim 1,
Mckenzie in e.g., Figs.4A/4B discloses:
An apparatus (400/4B) for monitoring a condition (e.g., by pressure transducers 408/411and controllers 401/410 ¶0199/¶0200) of a sealing device (e.g., not shown slip joint with packer 403/e.g.,¶0191¶0020¶0061¶0097), the apparatus (400) comprising:
an inlet (409/406) configured to receive pressurized fluid (e.g.,¶0176/pressurized fluid supply is described as being a pressurized air supply or any other fluid supply such as a hydraulic supply) from a seal activation fluid pressure source (e.g.,¶0179 pressurized fluid supply from any pressurized means);
an outlet (e.g., the outlet which is coupled to packer 403) configured to be connected to a sealing device (e.g., slip joint with packer 403) to deliver pressurized fluid (pumping fluid/¶0007¶0198) to a seal element (e.g., sealing packer 403) of the sealing device (slip joint with packer 403) to energize the sealing device in use (e.g.,¶0007¶0198);
a fluid barrier (valves 402/404) disposed between the inlet (409) and the outlet (to packer 403) and operable to isolate (e.g.,¶0038¶0073-¶0075)) the inlet from the outlet, wherein a fluid chamber (the fluid path between valve 402 and outlet 403 can be broadly interpreted as a fluid chamber) is defined between the fluid barrier (402) and the outlet (outlet towered 403); and
means (pressure sensors 408/411) for detecting a change in condition (pressure¶0199¶0200 or volume and other properties¶0068) in the fluid chamber (fluid path pressure between 402/403 is also monitored) indicative of a change in volume (pressure of fluid is related to the volume of sealing packer also e.g.,¶0068) of the seal element (packer 403) of the sealing device (slip joint packer 403).
Claim 11
Mckenzie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an inlet pressure transducer (408) located between the inlet (409) and the fluid chamber (path between 403/402) to monitor the pressure of the pressurized fluid which enters the apparatus via the inlet and an outlet pressure transducer located between the fluid chamber and the outlet to measure the pressure of the pressurized fluid delivered to the seal element (e.g.,¶0111¶0070/in embodiment of fig.15 508 is first pressure transducer and 513 as second transducer).
Claim 12
Mckenzie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a pressure regulator (controllers 401,410 connected to detector 408) located between the fluid chamber and the outlet (403), which is operable to regulate the pressure of the pressurized fluid at the outlet of the apparatus, and therefore to regulate the pressure of the pressurized fluid delivered to the seal element via the outlet (e.g.,¶0111¶0052-¶0054¶0028-¶0034).
Claim 13,
Mckenzie in e.g., Figs.4A/4B discloses:
A sealing device monitoring system (400) comprising:
a sealing device (not shown slip joint with packer 403/e.g.,¶0191) comprising a seal element (packer 403), the sealing device (not shown slip joint with packer 403/e.g.,¶0191) operable to be energized by a pressurized fluid from a seal activation pressure source (e.g., first and second pressurized supply fluid 409/406¶0174 first pressurized supply and¶0178 second pressurized air supply that can be any pressurized fluid¶0176/also ¶0199¶0200); and
an apparatus (control units 401,410/inlet pressurized fluid409/raiser slip joint with packers 403/407/detectors 408,411/valves 402,404,405) for monitoring a condition of the sealing device (via control of fluid pressure to packers 403/407);
wherein the apparatus comprises:
an inlet (409) for pressurized fluid (e.g., air supply or others e.g.,¶0176) coupled to the seal activation fluid pressure source (not shown but source of pressurized fluid e.g.,¶0176);
an outlet (the outlet which is coupled to 403) coupled to the sealing device (not shown slip joint with packer 403) to deliver pressurized fluid ( pressurized supply fluid such as air supply¶0176) to the seal element (packer 403) to energize the sealing device (not shown riser slip joint with packer 403/e.g.,¶0016¶0173);
a fluid barrier (e.g., valve 402) disposed between the inlet (409) and the outlet (the outlet towered 403) and operable to isolate the inlet(409) from the outlet (403), wherein a fluid chamber (fluid path between valve and packer) is defined between the fluid barrier (402) and the outlet (403); and
means (pressure sensors 408/411) for detecting a change in condition (pressure e.g.,¶0200) in the fluid chamber (chamber between 402 and 403) indicative of a change in volume (if pressure detected by 408 is low it indicates the packer 403 fails to create enough volume and sealing for raiser slip joint) of the seal element (packer 403).
Claim 14
Mckenzie discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the sealing device is a slip joint packer and where the seal element is a packer element (packer 403 and raiser slip joint, e.g., Abstract¶0020¶0097).
Claim 15
Mckenzie discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, further comprising a control module (401/410) operable to perform at least : receiving data and monitoring readings from transducers and/or sensors (408/411) included in the apparatus (e.g.,¶0052-¶0055).
Claim 16
Mckenzie in e.g., Figs.4A/4B discloses:
A method of monitoring a sealing device, the method comprising:
providing an apparatus (control units 401,410/inlet pressurized fluid 409/raiser slip joint with packers 403/407/detectors 408,411/valves 402,404,405) comprising an inlet (409) connected to a seal activation pressurized fluid source (not shown but disclosed in e.g.,¶0176), and an outlet (the outlet coupled to packer 403) connected to the sealing device (raiser slip joint with packer 403/only packers shown on drawings);
delivering pressurized fluid (e.g.,¶0176 pressurized fluid such as air from inlet 409) to a seal element (packer 403) of the sealing device (raiser slip joint with packer 403) to energize the sealing device (e.g.,¶0017¶0196);
isolating the sealing device (not shown raiser slip joint with packer 403) from the seal activation pressurized fluid source (source of pressurized supply fluid such as supply air e.g., ¶0176) by a fluid barrier (valve 402) disposed between the inlet (409) and the outlet (the outlet which is towered 403) of the apparatus (401/410/409/402/403/408/411);
detecting a change in condition (pressure change e.g., ¶0200) in a fluid chamber (chamber between valve 402 and packer 403) between the fluid barrier (402) and the outlet (shown by403), the change in condition indicative of a change in volume of the seal element of the sealing device (e.g.,¶0200 if detecting pressure indicate low pressure from a threshold it means packer does not have enough volume to seal and fails e.g., ¶0185-¶0188¶0191¶0194¶0207-¶0209).
Claim 17
Mckenzie discloses the method according to claim 16, comprising exposing the fluid chamber to a pressurized fluid from the seal activation pressurized fluid source to put the apparatus in a charged condition (at least ¶0176), isolating the sealing device from the seal activation pressurized fluid source after the fluid chamber has been charged (e.g.,¶0044-¶0045).
Claim 18
Mckenzie discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, comprising detecting a change in condition in the fluid chamber until the fluid chamber reaches a depleted condition (e.g.,¶0028¶0029¶0031¶0038 control unit monitor using pressure, volume sensors and comparison with historical and preset data if because of leakage the packer is not working properly).
Claim 19
Mckenzie discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, comprising recharging the fluid chamber by exposing the fluid chamber to a pressurized fluid from the seal activation pressurized fluid source to put the apparatus in a recharged condition (¶0044-¶0045 and ¶0087).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20170107782 A1, “Mckenzie”.
Claim 8
Mckenzie discloses apparatus of claim 1, although Mckenzie does not specifically teach wherein the apparatus is configured to recharge the fluid chamber from the seal activation fluid pressure source when the fluid chamber reaches a depleted condition. However, it would have been obvious to a worker of art to recharge the chamber with fluid when the fluid chamber reaches a depleted condition to recharge it to be able to operate the apparatus. one of ordinary skill in the art can easily provide a source to replenish any fluid that might have been lost or provide additional fluid if necessary.
Claim 9
Mckenzie teaches apparatus of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the apparatus is provided with at least one bypass to the fluid barrier, which is operable to fluidly connect the seal activation pressure source to the fluid chamber via the inlet (e.g., ¶0060 that the system may comprise more than one pathway between a first packer and a fluid pressure source, each pathway comprising its own electronically actuated valve. McKenzie further explains that providing such additional pathways facilitates activation of the packer in the event one electronically actuated valve is blocked or non-operational. To the extent McKenzie's disclosure of a second, parallel valve/pathway is not considered to expressly use the term "bypass," it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to characterize and implement this parallel pathway as a bypass to the (primary) fluid barrier, because: McKenzie itself identifies the exact problem such a bypass solves: contaminants frequently build up in packer energizing systems... [and] may become blocked or restricted which could impede or prevent the... valve from switching (¶0011), and expressly teaches adding a redundant pathway with its own valve as the solution to this identified blockage problem (¶0060),providing a second fluid path around a valve/barrier that is subject to blockage, so that fluid can still reach the downstream chamber if the primary path fails, is a known technique for achieving redundancy in fluid-control systems, and applying it to McKenzie's own architecture, where the "fluid barrier" of claim 1 is precisely the type of component (an electronically actuated valve) McKenzie identifies as prone to blockage yields nothing more than the predictable result McKenzie itself describes: continued packer activation despite a blocked primary valve. (see MPEP 2143(A) which combining/arranging known elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result), therefore, one of ordinary skilled in the art implementing McKenzie's ¶0060 teaching would necessarily arrive at a second pathway that fluidly connects the same fluid pressure source to the same downstream chamber via the same inlet supply, this is a straightforward implementation of what McKenzie already discloses as desirable.
Claim 10
Mckenzie teaches claim 9, McKenzie further discloses wherein the at least one bypass comprises a bypass valve which is operable to deliver fluid from the seal activation fluid pressure source to the fluid chamber (¶0060: that each of the additional (bypass) pathways comprises an electronically actuated valve, which valve is opened to permit fluid to reach the packer via that pathway. It would have been obvious to configure this valve as a bypass valve operable to deliver fluid from the seal activation fluid pressure source to the fluid chamber, because McKenzie's own stated purpose for the additional pathway, facilitating activation of the packer when the primary valve is blocked, necessarily requires that valve to actively deliver source fluid to the downstream chamber when actuated; this is simply the valve performing its disclosed function, and configuring it to do so is not more than the ordinary application of McKenzie's own teaching (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim 2-4 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20170107782 A1, “Mckenzie” in view of WO2009156264A2, “TOMZIK”2 .
Claim 2
Mckenzie teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the detected change in condition in the fluid chamber is a change in volume of the fluid chamber, and wherein the fluid chamber is operable to change in volume in response to a change in volume of the seal element.
In the similar field of endeavor, TOMZIK in e.g., Figs. 1-3 teaches an apparatus for monitoring a condition of a sealing device (e.g.,¶0006¶0018 elastic seal using sealant 12 for shaft 2 in Figs.1-2) wherein the detected change in condition in the fluid chamber (13/15/21) is a change in volume of the fluid chamber (13/15), and wherein the fluid chamber(13/15) is operable to change in volume (via piston 20/14 and adjusting means 17/control unit30) in response to a change in volume of the seal element (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TOMZIK‘s detected change in condition in the fluid chamber is a change in volume of the fluid chamber for Mckenzie‘s apparatus wherein the detected change in condition in the modified Mckenzie‘s fluid chamber is a change in volume of the fluid chamber, and wherein the modified Mckenzie‘s fluid chamber is operable to change in volume in response to a change in volume of the seal element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to convert physical seal-element volume change into a measurable fluid-chamber volume change as suggested by TOMZIK.
Claim 3
Mckenzie in view of TOMZIK teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, TOMZIK teaches wherein the change in volume of the fluid chamber is measured (using position sensor 25), and a change in volume of the seal element (volume sealant12 in chamber 13/15) is determined from the measured change in volume of the fluid chamber (volume sealant12 in chamber 13/15) as based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4
Mckenzie teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the fluid chamber comprises a piston chamber, and wherein the fluid barrier is a piston element which forms a seal with an inner wall of the piston chamber and which is movable in the piston chamber in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber. TOMZIK teaches wherein the fluid chamber (13/15) comprises a piston chamber (15), and wherein the fluid barrier (piston 20/14) is a piston element which forms a seal with an inner wall of the piston chamber (15) and which is movable in the piston chamber (15) in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber (movement of piston 14 monitored by 25e.g.,¶0025¶0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TOMZIK‘s piston chamber for Mckenzie‘s apparatus wherein the fluid chamber comprises a piston chamber, and wherein the fluid barrier is a piston element which forms a seal with an inner wall of the piston chamber and which is movable in the piston chamber in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art knows piston element and piston chamber which is movable in the piston chamber in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber as linked means of seal condition would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a more direct linked means of sensing seal condition as cited by TOMZIK.
Claim 7
Mckenzie in view of TOMZIK teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, TOMZIK teaches further comprising a linear transducer (detector 25) which is operable to measure the position of the piston element in the piston chamber (e.g.,¶0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TOMZIK ‘s linear transducer for the modified Mckenzie‘s piston chamber comprising a linear transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to application of known sensor technology to a known structure to achieve expected result and based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 4 alternatively is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20170107782 A1, “Mckenzie” in view of Trivedi, US 20150330173 A1.
Claim 4
Mckenzie teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the fluid chamber comprises a piston chamber, and wherein the fluid barrier is a piston element which forms a seal with an inner wall of the piston chamber and which is movable in the piston chamber in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber. Trivedi teaches wherein the fluid chamber comprises a piston chamber (channel 152 formed in a portion of the housing 102... configured to accommodate the piston 106 ¶0026), and wherein the fluid barrier is a piston element 106 which forms a seal with an inner wall of the piston chamber (when disposed in the channel 152, the piston 106 may isolate one portion of the channel 152 from another portion of the channel 152 to form a first chamber 150 and second chamber 116 within the channel 152:¶0027, i.e., the piston forms a sealing division against the channel's inner wall separating the two chambers) and which is movable in the piston chamber in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber (provision of a fluid... to an area beneath the piston 106... causes the piston to move towards the removable head 110 in a plane parallel to the central axis 144 ¶0039; sensor 120 monitors flow rate or pressure of the fluid within the channel 152 before, during or after actuation of the piston 106 ¶0038, the piston's movement within the chamber occurs directly in response to changes in the fluid condition, pressure/flow, supplied to the chamber, which condition is itself monitored by the sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Trivedi‘s piston chamber for Mckenzie‘s apparatus wherein the fluid chamber comprises a piston chamber, and wherein the fluid barrier is a piston element which forms a seal with an inner wall of the piston chamber and which is movable in the piston chamber in response to a change in condition in the fluid chamber. McKenzie's own disclosure notes that contaminants frequently build up in packer energizing systems... [and valves] may become blocked or restricted (¶0011), One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider alternative fluid-barrier structures, such as Trivedi's piston, less susceptible to this specific failure mode, or which at minimum provide additional diagnostic value (movement/position correlated to seal condition) beyond simple valve actuation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckenzie, US 20170107782 A1 in view of TOMZIK, WO2009156264A2 and in view of Chambers, US20150345237A1.
Claim 5
Mckenzie in view of TOMZIK (or Trivedi) teaches the apparatus of claim 4, Mckenzie in e.g., Fig.4B teaches an inlet 409 exposed to pressurized fluid from the seal activation pressure source but the combination does not teach wherein the piston element has a first piston face exposed to pressurized fluid from the seal activation pressure source and a second piston face exposed to pressurized fluid in the fluid chamber, and wherein the first piston face has a piston area which is smaller than the piston area of the second piston face, but in the similar field of endeavor, Chambers teaches wherein the piston element 300 has a first piston face 316/317 exposed to pressurized fluid from the seal activation pressure source and a second piston face 318/319 exposed to pressurized fluid in the fluid chamber, and wherein the first piston face 317 has a piston area which is smaller than the piston area of the second piston face 319 (¶0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chambers’ piston element for the modified Mckenzie‘s apparatus and piston element. Mckenzie identifies packer wear and pressure supply variability as causing packer wear (¶0008) ,one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to limit pressure with using smaller/larger face arrangement to address the issue and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckenzie, US 20170107782 A1 in view of Trivedi, US 20150330173 A1.
Claim 22
Mckenzie teaches claim 16, further teaches measuring one or more reference parameters (e.g., ¶0024¶0028-¶0031/preset values for sensors that can be pressure or volume e.g.,¶0024) while monitoring the sealing device; Mckenzie does not teach calculating a rate of change in volume of the seal element with respect to the one or more reference parameters; calculating from the rate of change a value of the one or more reference parameters at which a lower threshold volume of seal element is passed. In the similar field of endeavor, Trivedi teaches measuring one or more reference parameters (e.g., measuring parameters such as flow meter, pressure, flow rate) while monitoring the sealing device (before, during, after actuation of fluid: one or more sensors (sensor 120) fluidly coupled to the channel 152 to facilitate monitoring one or more properties (e.g., flow rate, pressure, or the like) of a fluid within the channel ¶0032; the sensor may be a flow meter, pressure transducer, or the like ¶0033, monitoring flow rate or pressure of the fluid... before, during or after actuation of the piston ¶0038); calculating a rate of change in volume of the seal element with respect to the one or more reference parameters (piston displacement, directly tied to the reduction/expansion of the seal element's inner diameter, is calculated as the time-integral of flow rate: d(t) = (1/A)∫q̇(t)dt ¶0040; separately, a slope of the piston force vs. piston displacement curve is indicative of a measure of stiffness of the sealing element, and a change in that slope indicates a change in the stiffness of the sealing element, and therefore, provides information relating to a degradation of the sealing element ¶0042, i.e., a computed rate/slope relationship between the measured fluid parameters and the physical condition and, via displacement, volume of the seal element); calculating from the rate of change a value of the one or more reference parameters at which a lower threshold volume of seal element is passed (a remaining useful life of the sealing element may be determined by comparing the damage assessment to a damage assessment of a previously failed sealing element, e.g., "damage prognosis" or "life estimation" ¶0046; further, the amount of degradation of the sealing element [is compared] to other sealing element profiles obtained from previously performed measurements... to determine... an amount of degradation ¶0044, and if the amount of degradation... falls within a predetermined threshold of predictable failure, maintenance may be performed ¶0049, i.e., the measured/calculated degradation trend is projected against known failure profiles to determine the point, in terms of the monitored parameters, at which the seal element reaches a failure/threshold condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Trivedi’s calculating method for Mckenzie‘s system and measuring one or more reference parameters while monitoring the Mckenzie‘ sealing device; calculating a rate of change in volume of the Mckenzie’s seal element with respect to the modified Mckenzie’s one or more reference parameters; calculating from the rate of change a value of the one or more reference parameters at which a lower threshold volume of seal element is passed. Mckenzie in e.g., ¶0031-0032 teaches sealing element condition wears during use, leak in sealing elements occur as pressure to maintain sealing element fully energized is diminished, a real-time comparison of a measured fluid parameter, pressure, against historical/preset levels to generate a control or alarm signal (¶0027–0032), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to expressly improve on time-based maintenance schedules by more accurately predicting or recognizing the useful remaining life of the sealing element (¶0043 of Trivedi), a benefit directly applicable to McKenzie's own stated concern with packer wear and premature failure (McKenzie ¶0008); and (3) applying Trivedi's known prognosis technique to McKenzie's known monitoring system yields nothing more than the predictable result of earlier, more accurate failure prediction ( see MPEP 2143(A)/(G)).
Claim 24
Mckenzie teaches claim 16, Mckenzie does not teach (b) measuring first and second reference parameters while monitoring the sealing device; (c) calculating a rate of change in volume of the seal element with respect to the first reference parameter; (d) calculating an average value of the second reference parameter; and (e) associating the calculated rate of change in volume with the calculation of the average value of the second reference parameter and recording the association in a database. However
Trivedi teaches b) measuring first and second reference parameters while monitoring the sealing device (sensor 120 measures both flow rate and pressure of the fluid ¶0032–¶0033, two distinct reference parameters);
(c) calculating a rate of change in volume of the seal element with respect to the first reference parameter (displacement (volume-related) computed from flow rate via d(t) = (1/A)∫q̇(t)dt ¶0040; force computed from pressure, F_p = (P_c − P_o)A ¶0041; slope of force vs. displacement as the degradation-indicative rate ¶0042);
(d) calculating an average value of the second reference parameter (a comparison of an average measured stiffness of the sealing element may be compared to a benchmark obtained from a previously measured sealing element to provide a qualitative indication that damage may be present ¶0044, an explicit averaging step performed on a measured/derived parameter); and (e) associating the calculated rate of change in volume with the calculation of the average value of the second reference parameter and recording the association in a database (at least one of the measured... parameters, data relating to the... parameters and the determined amount of degradation of the sealing element may be stored, thus facilitating a building of a library that may be used to determine an amount of degradation of subsequently utilized sealing elements... stored in any suitable medium, for example the computer readable medium of the controller ¶0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Trivedi‘s monitoring of sealing device for McKenzie’s sealing elements (a) monitoring a sealing device (b) measuring first and second reference parameters while monitoring the sealing device;(c) calculating a rate of change in volume of the seal element with respect to the first reference parameter; (d) calculating an average value of the second reference parameter; and (e) associating the calculated rate of change in volume with the calculation of the average value of the second reference parameter and recording the association in a database. Mckenzie in e.g., ¶0031-0032 teaches sealing element condition wears during use, leak in sealing elements occur as pressure to maintain sealing element fully energized is diminished, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improved future degradation assessment via historical comparison, exactly as Trivedi itself states its own purpose to be (see MPEP 2143(A)/(C)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 Prior art of record
Prosecution Insights