Ex Parte SHAFER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

14325589 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/325,589 07/08/2014
28841 7590
ConocoPhillips Company
600 North Dairy Ashford
Houston, TX 77079-1175
08/13/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Randall S. SHAFER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
42248US01 8506
EXAMINER
WOOD, DOUGLAS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3679
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Legal-IP@conocophillips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDALL S. SHAFER and GORDON T. POSS
Appeal2017-010338
Application 14/325,589
Technology Center 3600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, LISA M. GUIJT, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as the Applicant,
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY. Br. 1.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated May 5, 2016, as
supplemented by the Advisory Action dated June 17, 2016.
Appeal 2017-010338
Application 14/325,589
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A staged pressure control system attached to a wellhead of
a well, comprising:
a blowout preventer stack having a first pressure rating
below anticipated blowout pressure of the well; and
a pre-positioned capping device having a blind shear ram
disposed between the wellhead and the blowout preventer stack
to close the well and a second pressure rating higher than the first
pressure rating, wherein the prepositioned capping device is
configured to actuate upon sensing pressure greater than the first
pressure rating.
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as anticipated by Redden (US 8,881,829 B2; issued Nov. 11, 2014).
II. Claims 2--4 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Redden.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Redden
discloses a blowout preventer (BOP) stack (i.e., primary BOP 102) having a
first pressure rating below anticipated blowout pressure of the well (i.e., an
emergency condition or a condition which may cause damage). Final Act. 2.
The Examiner also finds that Redden discloses a pre-positioned capping
device (PCD) (i.e., blind/shear ram assembly 20) having a blind sheer ram
disposed between a wellhead 90 and primary BOP stack 102 to close the
2
Appeal 2017-010338
Application 14/325,589
well and a second pressure rating higher than the first pressure rating,
wherein the PCD is configured to actuate upon sensing pressure greater than
the first pressure rating (i.e., "control system receives signals from remote
station 110 to selectively activate capping device 20)." Id. at 2-3 ( citing
Redden 4:3-8).
Appellants argue that Redden' s disclosure of an emergency condition
or a blowout that causes damage fails to disclose "any aspect of the pressure
rating for the primary BOP stack," including "a first pressure rating below
anticipated blowout pressure of the well," as claimed. Br. 3 (emphasis
added). To the contrary, Appellants submit that one skilled in the art would
use a primary BOP stack at "a pressure rating above (not below) anticipated
blowout pressure to contain a possible well blowout." Id. Appellants also
argue that Redden's disclosure of "'a control system that receives signals
from a remote station 110 to selectively activate' the backup BOP system
lacks any indication of pressure sensing." Id. In other words, Appellants
submit that Redden does not disclose that Redden's blind/shear ram
assembly 20 is configured to actuate upon sensing "a certain pressure
threshold," such as a pressure greater than the first pressure rating, as
claimed; rather, Redden's blind/shear ram assembly 20 "operates upon
conditions not dependent on such pressure threshold to perform the different
'backup' function for the primary BOP stack also intended to function for
containing blowout pressure." Id.
The Examiner responds that
[i]n the event of a failure of the primary BOP [stack] of Redden,
the pressure containing ability of the [BOP] stack (without
operational rams or annular sealing components) is reduced to
what can be contained by the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid
3
Appeal 2017-010338
Application 14/325,589
above the BOP, thus rendering the first pressure rating less than
the second. The backup BOP, assumed to be still operational,
would necessarily be capable of containing pressures greater than
that which can be contained merely by the fluid above the
formation fluids, and thus have a pressure rating greater than the
non-operational primary BOP.
Ans. 3.
The Examiner has not provided, nor can we find, support in Redden
for determining that Redden's primary BOP stack operates at a first pressure
rating below the anticipated blowout pressure of the well, as claimed, or that
Redden's system is a staged pressure control system, wherein ram assembly
20 is configured to actuate upon sensing pressure greater than the pressure
rating of the primary BOP. 3 Redden discloses
[a] fail-safe, independently controlled and operated backup
blowout prevention system for a subsea wellhead that also uses
a primary BOP system. The backup blowout prevention system
which is positioned between the primary BOP system and the
wellhead, allows the fluid flowing from the well to be shut off
prior to reaching the primary BOP system so that the primary
BOP system may be repaired or replaced.
Redden 1:50-56; see also id. at 2:59---64 ("[w]hen damage occurs to the
primary BOP 102 ... , flow of fluids 105 from the wellhead 90 may be
3 Cf Spec. ,r 35 ("BOP stack 440 may be pressure rated for no more than
104 megapascals (MPa), which is sufficient for normal drilling operations
where wellbore pressures are controlled with weight of mud used but may
not be adequate to contain possible pressures anticipated at some wells
should a blowout occur. The PCD 430 may enable safe operation even
during a blowout situation by being pressure rated at the maximum
anticipated pressure, such as at least 137 MPa greater pressure rating than
the BOP stack 440 .... For some embodiments, actuation of the PCD 430
occurs upon sensing a pressure at the PCD 430 greater than a threshold
pressure limit, such as the pressure rating of the BOP stack 440.").
4
Appeal 2017-010338
Application 14/325,589
stopped and ... a replacement primary BOP 102' [may be connected]");
3: 6-7 ("ram assembly 20 is designed to selectively shear or close off the
wellbore 92"); 4:3-5 ("entire system 10 would be coupled to a control
system that receives signals from a remote station 110 to selectively activate
the ram assembly 20"). Thus, Redden discloses a back-up system that is
selectively activated to stop fluid flow to allow repair or replacement of
primary BOP 102, for example, if primary BOP 102 is damaged for any
reason. We agree with Appellants that Redden fails to disclose that primary
BOP 102 has a first pressure rating below the anticipated blowout pressure
of the well, or that ram assembly 20 is configured to actuate upon sensing
pressure greater than the first pressure rating, as claimed.
Additionally, the Examiner's assumption that an operational back-up
BOP stack is configured to actuate upon sensing pressure greater than a first
pressure rating of a non-operational primary BOP is unreasonable.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 5-10. Independent claim 11 recites similar
claim limitations, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons stated
supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
11, and claims 15-20 depending therefrom.
Rejection II
The Examiner's reliance on Redden in the rejection of claims 2--4 and
12-14 does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner's findings with respect
to Redden as applied to independent claim 1 and 11. Therefore, for
essentially the same reasons stated supra, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4 and 12-14.
5
Appeal 2017-010338
Application 14/325,589
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6