HELMERICH & PAYNE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 2021

2019004993 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/939,089 11/12/2015 Peter A. Torrione 107157-1208324 1994 20350 7590 03/02/2021 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP - West Coast Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER A. TORRIONE Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM and enter a NEW GROUND of REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Covar Applied Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “systems and methods for locating, measuring, counting, and aiding in the handling of drill pipes.” Spec. 1:9–10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for locating, measuring, counting, aiding or adjusting the handling of drill pipes, the system comprising: at least one camera, said camera operably connected to at least one processor wherein said camera is capable of gathering visual data regarding detecting, measuring, localizing or any combination components selected from pipes, roughnecks, elevators, and combinations thereof and transmitting the data to the processor; the processor configured to analyze the visual data, the processor operably connected to the drill pipe elevator and configured to adjust, alter, or halt elevator operations in response to visual data that indicates a scenario within or outside of a pre-determined set of conditions; and, at least one logging system connected to said processor for recording said data. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Abdollahi US 2009/0159294 A1 June 25, 2009 Blessum US 2011/0308332 A1 Dec. 22, 2011 Wessling US 2012/0188090 A1 July 26, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Abdollahi and Blessum. Non-Final Act. 3–10. Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 3 Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Abdollahi, Blessum, and Wessling. Non-Final Act. 10–12. Claims 8–11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Blessum and Abdollahi. Non-Final Act. 12–17. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Blessum, Abdollahi, and Wessling. Non-Final Act. 17–18. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 13, and 14 over Abdollahi and Blessum The Examiner finds Abdollahi and Blessum teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3–6. In particular, the Examiner finds Abdollahi teaches “the processor operably connected to the drill pipe elevator and configured to adjust, alter, or halt elevator operations in response to visual data that indicates a scenario within or outside of a pre-determined set of conditions” (claim 1). See Non-Final Act. 4–6 (citing Abdollahi ¶¶ 70–72, 100, 111–116). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. Abdollahi does not “adjust, alter, or halt elevator operations in response to visual data” (claim 1) because “Abdollahi discloses a robotic arm with an end effector or grabbing member which utilizes mechanical, laser, ultrasonic, and magnetic sensors.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Abdollahi ¶ 44). “The Examiner conflates the robotic arm system of Abdollahi which performs the task of the Derrick Man, with the claimed invention which adjusts elevator operations, thereby performing the task of the Rig Operator.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Abdollahi ¶ 3 (“Typical oil rig servicing systems require: a rig operator, who operates the elevator which lifts the pipe Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 4 out of the ground and lowers the pipe into the ground; a ground operator, who handles the pipes that are being hoisted by the elevator and places the lower ends of the pipes into a drip tray; and a derrick man, who works on a raised platform (typically 20–55 feet above the ground) to manipulate the upper ends of the pipes into an upper racking board.”). ii. Abdollahi does not “adjust, alter, or halt elevator operations in response to visual data” (claim 1) because Abdollahi’s mechanical switches “do not relate to computer vision or adjusting elevator operations in response to visual data in any way.” Appeal Br. 10. “By teaching the use of a simple mechanical switch, which provides information to the system controller, Abdollahi would lead the skilled artisan away from the use of a more complex processor which controls elevator operations in response to visual data.” Appeal Br. 11. As consistently described throughout the specification, the sensors of robotic system N2 which provide confirmation that a pipe has been successfully grabbed by end effector N7, are mechanical sensors, laser sensors, ultrasonic sensors, infrared sensors, or magnetic sensors. Nothing in this reference would lead the ordinarily skilled artisan to adjust the elevator “in response to visual data.” Appeal Br. 13. In response, the Examiner explains “it is clear from the teachings of Abdollahi that the elevator E6 and robotic system N2 are working in conjunction with one another in a combined system controlled by the same controller/processor and that such control is based on shared image data, sensor data, etc.” Ans. 20. In reply, Appellant argues “in the only instance in Abdollahi when the elevator is not controlled by a human operator it is not controlled in response to visual data as claimed.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Abdollahi ¶ 116); see also Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 5 Reply Br. 4–6 (“The robotic system N2 is entirely distinct from the elevator. They perform different functions to achieve different goals.”), 6–7 (“[T]he sensors of robotic system N2 do not include or even relate to visual data.”). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Abdollahi discloses “[c]ontroller 210 uses image data 204 together with position data 205 from the position sensors associated with robotic system N2 to generate suitable control signals 206 which control the movement of robotic system N2 so that end effector N7 achieves the desired target position.” Abdollahi ¶ 70. Abdollahi discloses “[i]mage sensing system 202 obtains image data 204 relating to a region in a vicinity of elevator axis E11 above racking platform N1.” Abdollahi ¶ 71. Abdollahi discloses “controller 210 comprises an image processing component 212 which receives image data 204 from image sensing system 202 and generates a target position di for end effector N7.” Abdollahi ¶ 72. Abdollahi further discloses “controller 210 determines whether a pipe 130 is within the field of view of image sensing system 202.” Abdollahi ¶ 100. Abdollahi further discloses “pipe presence sensor E6F comprises a mechanical switch E6G which is activated when a pipe is located between collar portions E8A and E8B. Alternatively or additionally, pipe presence sensor E6F could comprise one or more of a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor or a magnetic sensor.” Abdollahi ¶ 115. Finally, Abdollahi further discloses In operation, elevator E6 may be controlled by the system controller in conjunction with the operation of a robotic system for manipulating pipes such as, for example, robotic system N2 (or 602) described above. The system controller may provide Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 6 control signals and receive feedback signals from the actuators and sensors of elevator E6 though a wireless connection such as, for example, a radio frequency (RF) connection. In tripping out operations, elevator E6 may be controlled to maintain collar portions E8A and E8B in the closed position with locking mechanism E8D in the locked position until the system controller receives confirmation from the sensors of robotic system N2 that a pipe held by elevator has been successfully grabbed by end effector N7. Conversely, in tripping in operations, robotic system N2 may be controlled to maintain grabbing members N7A and N7B of end effector in the closed position until the system controller receives confirmation from the sensors of elevator E6 that a pipe held by end effector N7 has been successfully received in pipe coupler E8 and collar portions E8A and E8B are in the closed position with locking mechanism E8D in the locked position. Abdollahi ¶ 116. As disclosed in Abdollahi in paragraph 116, in tripping out operations, the elevator is controlled in response to sensors of robotic system N2, rather than controlling the elevator in response to visual data. Abdollahi ¶ 116. As disclosed in Abdollahi in paragraph 116, in tripping in operations, the robotic system N2 is controlled in response to sensors of the elevator, rather than controlling the elevator in response to visual data. Abdollahi ¶ 116. However, we do not end our review here. Further details of the tripping in operations are disclosed in Abdollahi: In the block 522 [(Fig. 16B)] movement of robotic system N2, the target position of end effector N7 may be the target position required to place the top of pipe 130 in alignment with elevator axis E11. This target position may be dynamically updated on the basis of image data 204. When it is determined (based on image data 204) that the top of pipe 130 is located in alignment with axis E11 of elevator E6 (block 522 YES output), then elevator E6 grabs pipe 130 in block 524 [(Fig. 16B)]. Abdollahi ¶ 103 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 7 Abdollahi in paragraph 103 makes it clear that Abdollahi, without modification, teaches “the processor operably connected to the drill pipe elevator and configured to adjust, alter, or halt elevator operations in response to visual data that indicates a scenario within or outside of a pre- determined set of conditions” (claim 1) as recited in claim 1 because Abdollahi’s elevator E6 grabs pipe 130 in response to image data 204 (from camera 202). Abdollahi ¶ 103. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, and 14, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 6– 13. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 7 over Abdollahi, Blessum, and Wessling Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 6–13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 7. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8–11 and 15 over Blessum and Abdollahi Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 6–13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8–11 and 15. Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 8 The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 12 over Blessum, Abdollahi, and Wessling Appellant does not present separate arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 6–13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 is affirmed. We designate the affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) because we have modified the Examiner’s reasoning to include further discussion of Abdollahi, for all claims, to give Appellant a fair opportunity to respond to the modified thrust of the rejection as explained in this decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–3, 5, 6, 13, 14 103 Abdollahi, Blessum 1–3, 5, 6, 13, 14 1–3, 5, 6, 13, 14 4, 7 103 Abdollahi, Blessum, Wessling 4, 7 4, 7 8–11, 15 103 Blessum, Abdollahi 8–11, 15 8–11, 15 12 103 Blessum, Abdollahi, Wessling 12 12 Overall Outcome 1–15 1–15 Appeal 2019-004993 Application 14/939,089 9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. 41.50(B)