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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 01/28/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lower well control valve must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim 18. No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
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.
Claim 18 is 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. It is unclear from the specification if the lower well control valve is a valve in the lower well or a top drive valve as recited in [0041] therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No prior art rejection is applied at this time as the limitations fail to provide clear and definite boundaries.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated, in a first interpretation, by Knudsen et al. (US8833488).
Claim 1. Knudsen discloses: A system for managing pressure in a standpipe during a subterranean operation (abstract), the system comprising: a standpipe (26 standpipe, Fig. 1) on a rig (10 well system illustrates a rig system used for drilling operations, Col. 1, lines 19-20; Fig. 1) that supplies mud (18 drilling fluid known as mud, Col. 1, line 50) from one or more mud pumps (68 mud pump, Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 26-28) to a tubular string (16 drill string, Fig. 1); a rig controller (74 control system and 80 standpipe pressure control system, Fig. 3-4; Col. 4, lines 56-59); and a valve (34 choke, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the standpipe (26 standpipe and 34 chokes are fluidically connected; Fig. 1) and communicatively coupled to the rig controller (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 53-56), wherein the rig controller is configured to detect a first signature (output of pump could be determined by counting pump strokes; Col. 3, lines 18-21) of conditions of the rig based on data sources (count of pump strokes i.e. pump flow; Col. 3, lines 18-21) received at the rig controller and wherein the rig controller causes the valve to open or close or partially open to control pressure in the standpipe based on the first signature (hydraulics model utilizes flow of fluid through the drill string to determine desired annulus pressure {Col. 4, lines 20-26}, hydraulics model relays desired annulus pressure to data acquisition and control interface and predictive device {Col. 45, lines 27-49}, controller used to control operation of choke based upon annulus pressure {Col. 4, lines 63-65}, Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated, in a second interpretation, by Knudsen et al. (US8833488).
Claim 1. Knudsen discloses: A system for managing pressure in a standpipe during a subterranean operation (abstract), the system comprising: a standpipe (26 standpipe, Fig. 1) on a rig (10 well system illustrates a rig system used for drilling operations, Col. 1, lines 19-20; Fig. 1) that supplies mud (18 drilling fluid known as mud, Col. 1, line 50) from one or more mud pumps (68 mud pump, Fig. 1) to a tubular string (16 drill string, Fig. 1); a rig controller (74 control system and 80 standpipe pressure control system, Fig. 3-4); and a valve (34 choke, Fig. 2) in fluid communication with the standpipe (26 standpipe and 34 chokes are fluidically connected; Col. 6, lines 53-56) and communicatively coupled to the rig controller (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 53-56), wherein the rig controller is configured to detect a first signature (94 measured standpipe pressure using 44 pressure sensor; Col. 6, lines 64-67) of conditions of the rig based on data sources (44 pressure sensor, Fig. 1) received at the rig controller and wherein the rig controller causes the valve to open or close or partially open to control pressure in the standpipe based on the first signature (pressure is adjusted by controller via 44 pressure sensor…34 choke is controlled by controller…standpipe pressure is maintained at the desired level; Col. 6, lines 47-56).
Claim 3. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the rig controller causes the valve to be opened based on the first signature and releases pressure through the valve from the standpipe (reducing a difference between measured standpipe pressure and desired standpipe pressure; Col. 7, lines 1-2).
Claim 4. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 3, wherein the first signature comprises a condition which indicates that pressure in the standpipe is below (controller uses difference between desired standpipe pressure and the measured standpipe pressure; Col. 6, lines 50-56) a first pre-determined pressure level (92 desired standpipe pressure; Col. 5, line 49-58).
Claim 6. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 4, wherein the rig controller is configured to detect a second signature (36 pressure sensor at wellhead, Fig. 2) of the conditions of the rig based on the data sources received at the rig controller, and wherein the rig controller causes the valve to open or close or partially open based on the second signature (Fig. 2 illustrates signature from 36 pressure sensor received by the controller through the control system to control the choke).
Claim 12. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the rig controller is configured to compare the first signature to one or more historical signatures stored in a signature database (122 predictive device determines what sensor should be received…desired pressure…based on past data; Col. 4, line 34-40), and wherein the one or more historical signatures indicate an action to be taken if the first signature matches one of the one or more historical signatures (122 predictive device provides input to the controller for operation of choke; Fig. 2, Col. 4, lines 34-49).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable, under either interpretation, over Knudsen et al. (US8833488) in view of Official Notice.
Claim 5. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 4 and first pre-determined pressure level. Knudsen does not explicitly disclose: the first pre-determined pressure level is a pressure that reduces damage to the valve when the valve is opened. Examiner takes Official Notice that using a threshold below a safe operating limit is a well-known and routine practice to ensure safe operation. Such a threshold is commonly used to provide a margin of safety where exceeding the threshold may result in failure, damage or risk to health and safety. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set a pre-determined pressure level below a pressure that would damage a valve when operated as such modification represents a predictable solution to a known problem using known techniques.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable, under the first interpretation, over Knudsen et al. (US8833488) in view of Spencer et al. (US11149506).
Claim 9. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 1 and the first signature indicates that strokes per minute of the one or more mud pumps (as previously rejected in claim 1 under the first interpretation). Knudsen does not explicitly disclose: strokes per minute of the one or more mud pumps is non-zero, and wherein the rig controller causes the valve to close regardless of other conditions of the rig.
Spencer discloses a system for maintain fluid pressure within a well system using a controller and a choke wherein the controller closes the choke when the pumps are slowing prior to making a drill string connection. Therefore, Spencer teaches: strokes per minute of the one or more mud pumps is non-zero (340 mud pump slows, Fig. 3; strokes are non-zero), and wherein the rig controller (400 PLC; Col. 5, Lines 47-57) causes the valve to close regardless of other conditions of the rig (360 choke closes, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system of Knudsen by incorporating the choke control system of Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a signature that indicates the strokes per minute of the mud pump is non-zero and comprise a controller that causes a valve to close regardless of other conditions of the rig as taught by Spencer (Col. 7, line 40 – Col. 8, line 22).
Claim 10. Knudsen and Spencer teach: The system of claim 9, further comprising a safety check (Spencer: decision point 370, Fig. 3), wherein the safety check indicates that at least a portion of a well event (Spencer: trapped pressure value; Fig. 3) has occurred (Spencer: 385 or 375, comparison of pressures; Fig. 3), and the rig controller causes the valve to close or remain closed in response to the safety check (Spencer: 390 choke remains closed, Fig. 3).
Spencer discloses a system for maintaining fluid pressure within a well system using a controller and a choke wherein the controller keeps a choke closed when a trapped pressure is less than a desired pressure set point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system of Knudsen by incorporating the choke control system of Spencer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a safety check for a well event where the rig controller keeps a valve closed as taught by Spencer (Col. 7, line 40 – Col. 8, line 22).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable, under the second interpretation, over Knudsen et al. (US8833488) in view of Detlef et al. (US8174404).
Claim 11. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 1, and tubular string (16 drill string, Fig. 1). Knudsen does not disclose: the first signature indicates a mud pulse telemetry mode, wherein the rig controller receives data for transmission downhole and controls the valve to produce pressure pulses in the standpipe that are representative of the data, and wherein the pressure pulses are transmitted downhole through mud in the tubular string.
Detlef recites a mud pulse telemetry system comprising of an oscillating shear valve coupled to the drilling mud supply line that generates pressure pulses in the drilling fluid to communicate to a downhole tool. Therefore, Detlef teaches: mud pulse telemetry mode (mud pulse telemetry, abstract), wherein the rig controller (24 controller, Fig. 1) receives data for transmission downhole (pulser…transmits data to a downhole receiver; Col. 13, lines 29-30) and controls the valve (oscillating shear valve; Col. 13, line 20) to produce pressure pulses (low signal amplitudes on the order of 3-5 bar; Col. 13, lines 23) in the standpipe (13 fluid supply line, fig. 15) that are representative of the data, and wherein the pressure pulses are transmitted downhole through mud in the tubular string (pulser…transmits data to a downhole receiver; Col. 13, lines 29-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system and choke of Knudsen by incorporating the oscillating valve of Detlef with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create pressure pulses in the drilling fluid to communicate to a downhole tool as taught by Detlef (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 14, line 10).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable, under the second interpretation, over Knudsen et al. (US8833488) in view of Norman (US3520185).
Claim 2. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the rig controller causes the valve to be closed based on the first signature and wherein the valve prevents pressure loss through the valve from the standpipe when closed (pressure is adjusted by controller…choke is controlled by controller…standpipe pressure is maintained at the desired level; Col. 6, lines 47-56). Knudsen does not disclose: a delay timer after the first signature is detected.
Norman discloses a flow metering control system comprising of a control valve and timer wherein the timer is actuated based upon a pressure event and once a preset time has elapsed, the control system opens or closes the valve. Therefore, Norman teaches: a delay timer (18 timer, Fig. 1) after the first signature (pressure increase…contact switch; Col. 3, lines 49-51) is detected (use of the timing device is to provide sufficient lapse time for the pressure sensing element to reposition itself; Col. 3, line 59 – Col. 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system and flow control devices of Knudsen by incorporating the timer delayed control system of Norman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a control system wherein a timer is used to delay the next operation of opening or closing a valve in a flow metering system as taught by Norman (Col. 3, line 9 – Col. 4, line 1).
Claim 7. Knudsen discloses: The system of claim 6, wherein the rig controller causes the valve to be closed based on the second signature and wherein the valve prevents pressure loss through the valve from the standpipe (pressure is adjusted by controller…flow control devices are controlled by controller…standpipe pressure is maintained at the desired level; Col. 6, lines 47-56); see previously rejected claim 6). Knudsen does not disclose: a time delay after the first signature is detected.
Norman further teaches: a time delay after the first signature is detected (see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable, under the second interpretation, over Knudsen et al. (US8833488) in view of Norman (US3520185) and Carnes (US11346167).
Claim 8. Knudsen and in view of Norman teach: The system of claim 7. Knudsen discloses the second signature (see previously rejected claim 6) and first pre-determined pressure level (see previously rejected claim 4). Knudsen doses to disclose: a condition which indicates that pressure in the standpipe is below a second pre-determined pressure level, wherein the second pre-determined pressure level is below the first pre-determined pressure level and wherein the second pre-determined pressure level indicates that the pressure in the standpipe is at a level where a connection to the tubular string can be made.
Carnes discloses a system for relieving pressure in a drill string on a drilling rig prior to adding a section of drill pipe to the drill string. Therefore, Carnes teaches: the second signature comprises a condition which indicates that pressure (pressure indicator 214 indicates pressure in standpipe is atmospheric; Col. 16, lines 6-12. When standpipe pressure is at atmospheric, 2nd signature wellhead pressure is also at atmospheric since the wellhead is open to atmosphere; Fig. 1) in the standpipe is below a second pre-determined pressure level (atmospheric pressure; Col. 1, lines 50-55 and Col. 16, lines 6-12), wherein the second pre-determined pressure level is below the first pre-determined pressure level (desired standpipe pressure of Knudsen would be greater that atmospheric), and wherein the second pre-determined pressure level indicates that the pressure in the standpipe is at a level where a connection to the tubular string can be made (pressure in drill string is atmospheric…crew can unscrew a threaded connection…possible to add another section of drill pipe; Col. 1, lines 48-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system and flow control devices of Knudsen by incorporating the release of the drill pipe pressure prior to making or breaking a connection with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a control system wherein a pressure is relieved from the system before a connection is made up or broken as taught by Carnes (Col. 1, lines 48-55).
Claims 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnes (US11346167) in view of Norman (US3520185).
Claim 13. A method for managing pressure in a standpipe during a subterranean operation, the method comprising (abstract): stopping a mud pump (relief of drill string pressure when 206 mud pump is stopped; Col. 1, lines 56-58) that supplies pressurized mud to the standpipe (130 standpipe, Fig. 1-2) on a rig; monitoring, via a pressure sensor (214 pressure indicators; Col. 16, lines 9-12), the pressure in the standpipe; opening (Fig. 1) via a rig controller (402 medium, Fig. 4), a valve (106 valve, Fig. 1-2) when the pressure is below a first pre-determined pressure level (dissipating pressure once the pump is stopped i.e. less than the pumping discharge pressure; Col. 1, lines 56-58), wherein the valve is in pressure communication with the standpipe (130 standpipe and 106 valve are fluidically connected; Fig. 1-2); releasing the pressure through the valve (Fig. 2) until the pressure is decreased to a level below a second pre-determined pressure level (pressure indicator 214 indicates pressure in standpipe is atmospheric; Col. 16, lines 6-12); and adding a tubular to a tubular string while the pressure is below the second pre-determined pressure level (pressure in drill string is atmospheric…crew can unscrew a threaded connection…possible to add another section of drill pipe; Col. 1, lines 48-55). Canes does not disclose: initiating a delay timer when the pressure is below the second pre-determined pressure level; closing the valve, via the rig controller, when the delay timer has expired.
Norman teaches: initiating a delay timer (18 timer, Fig. 1) when the pressure is below the second pre-determined pressure level (pressure event…contact switch; Col. 3, lines 49-51); closing the valve (21 control valve, Fig. 1), via the rig controller (Fig. 1), when the delay timer has expired when the delay timer has expired (use of the timing device is to provide sufficient lapse time for the pressure sensing element to reposition itself; Col. 3, line 59 – Col. 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system and flow control devices of Carnes by incorporating the timer delayed control system of Norman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create a control system wherein a timer is used to delay the next operation of opening or closing a valve in a flow metering system as taught by Norman (Col. 3, line 9 – Col. 4, line 1).
Claim 14. Carnes in view of Norman teach: The method of claim 13, further comprising starting the mud pump (106 valve closed…starting a 206 drilling delivery system, Fig. 2; Col. 14, lines 6-9), and increasing the pressure back above the first pre-determined pressure level (upon starting the pumps, pressure will inherently increase to the pump discharge pressure).
Claim 15. Carnes in view of Norman teach: The method of claim 14. Carnes does not explicitly disclose: repeating stopping, monitoring, opening, releasing, closing, adding, and starting for each time a tubular is added to the tubular string, and performing the stopping, monitoring, opening, releasing, closing, adding, and starting automatically via the rig controller. Carnes does disclose the system stopping and relieving pressure before a connection is added (Col. 1, lines 50-55) and creating pressure in the system for subsequent drilling operations (Col. 13, lines 28-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to repeat the pressure control process when adding additional lengths of tubulars to the drill string as instantly claimed based on choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 16. Carnes discloses: A method for managing pressure in a standpipe during a subterranean operation (abstract), the method comprising: monitoring (408 delivery system status monitor; Fig. 4), via a rig controller (402 medium, Fig. 4), data sources from the rig (208 status sensor, Fig. 2); detecting a first signature of conditions of the rig based on the data sources (408 delivery system status monitor indicates that the 206 drilling fluid delivery system is not running; Col. 15, lines 58-63), wherein the first signature indicates that the pressure in the standpipe is below a first pre-determined pressure level (dissipating pressure once the pump is stopped i.e. less than the pumping discharge pressure; Col. 1, lines 56-58); opening, via the rig controller, a valve (106 valve moves from closed position to the open position; Col. 15, lines 65-66) in pressure communication with the standpipe (130 standpipe and 106 valve are fluidically connected; Fig. 1-2) in response to detecting the first signature (Col. 15, lines 58-63); releasing the pressure from the standpipe through the valve (Fig. 1); detecting a second signature of conditions of the rig based on the data sources, wherein the second signature indicates that the pressure in the standpipe is below a second pre- determined pressure level (pressure indicator 214 indicates pressure in standpipe is atmospheric; Col. 16, lines 6-12); initiating, via the rig controller (see previously rejected claim 13). Carnes does not disclose: initiating a delay timer when the pressure is below the second pre- determined pressure level; and closing the valve, via the rig controller, when the delay timer has expired.
Norman teaches: initiating a delay timer when the pressure is below the second pre- determined pressure level; and closing the valve, via the rig controller, when the delay timer has expired (see previously rejected claim 13).
Claim 17. Carnes and Norman teach: The method of claim 16, wherein the first signature further indicates that strokes per minute of a mud pump is zero (Carnes: 408 delivery system status monitor indicates that the 206 drilling fluid delivery system is not running; Col. 15, lines 58-63), and wherein the mud pump delivers mud to the standpipe (Carnes: Fig. 2).
Claim 19. Carnes and Norman teach: The method of claim 16, wherein the first signature further indicates a time mode is enabled and that an open timer delay has expired, which indicates that it is time to open the valve (Norman: timer has completed its delay function and trigger means to close valve; Col. 3, lines 49-56; see previously rejected claim 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oy (US2015/0233197) discloses a system of regulating drilling fluid pressure utilizing a relief valve. Pool et al. (US2011/0139509) discloses a system similar to Knudsen for maintaining a desired downhole pressure during drilling operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676