PTAB

IPR2016-00624

PaSon Systems USA Corp v. Auto Dril Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Well Drilling Control System
  • Brief Description: The ’172 patent discloses an automated system for controlling the weight-on-bit (WOB) during oil and gas drilling operations. The system regulates the release of the drill string by using an electronic sensor to measure tension on the support cable, comparing the measured value to a desired WOB, and proportionately controlling a drawworks brake with a variable drive electric motor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Bowden in view of Guggari.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bowden (Patent 3,265,359) and Guggari (Patent 6,029,951).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Bowden and Guggari teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Bowden, an early automatic driller system, was asserted to teach the foundational elements of an automatic drilling system, including a drawworks, a prime mover, a sensor for measuring drill line tension, and a variable drive electric motor coupled to a band brake system to maintain a constant WOB. However, Bowden’s control system was primarily mechanical and analog. Petitioner contended that Guggari, which discloses a modern, digital drawworks control system, supplies the very features the patentee added to overcome rejections during prosecution. Specifically, Guggari was argued to teach a "direct interface" bit weight sensor (a strain gauge affixed to the deadline that generates an electrical signal), the use of a programmable logic controller (PLC) or computer processor as the "electronic bit weight comparison means," and a fully electronic system for controlling the drawworks. Petitioner asserted that combining Guggari’s modern electronic control components with Bowden's foundational automatic braking system renders the claims obvious. For claim 2, Petitioner argued Guggari explicitly teaches using a PLC as the comparison means. For claim 3, Petitioner mapped Guggari's disclosure of a processor, memory, user inputs, and signal processing to the various "means" sub-elements of the claimed electronic comparison means.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner provided multiple rationales for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings. The primary motivation was to upgrade Bowden’s older, analog control system with the known benefits of the modern digital electronic system taught by Guggari. By the ’172 patent’s priority date, digital electronics had become cheaper, more reliable, and more versatile. Specific motivations included:
      • Improved Performance: Replacing Bowden's analog/hydraulic components with Guggari's digital system, featuring a direct-interface strain gauge, would eliminate signal degradation over long hydraulic lines and allow for more advanced control algorithms (e.g., PID control), resulting in more accurate WOB maintenance.
      • Increased Safety: Guggari’s system allows power electronics and controllers to be located safely off the rig floor, reducing explosion and ignition risks associated with Bowden’s on-floor power equipment.
      • Reduced Cost and Maintenance: The digital components in Guggari were less expensive and required less maintenance than the analog hydraulic systems of Bowden.
      • Enhanced Functionality: A digital system like Guggari’s is programmable, can control multiple types of brakes, offers system redundancy (e.g., using multiple sensors), and is less susceptible to environmental factors like temperature changes.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved replacing well-understood analog control components with well-understood, commercially available digital components to perform the same functions (sensing, comparing, and actuating) in a predictable manner.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Bit weight sensor... directly interfaced with bit support means" (Claim 1) / "sensor means for measuring bit weight directly through interface with bit support means" (Claim 3): Petitioner argued that, based on the prosecution history, this limitation was added to distinguish over prior art that used a hydraulic pressure sensor connected via a fluid line to a remote pressure transducer. Therefore, the term should be construed to mean a sensor, such as a strain gauge, that is located on the cable ("bit support means") and generates an electrical signal directly at that location, rather than transmitting a pressure signal for later conversion. Petitioner asserted Guggari explicitly discloses such a sensor.
  • "Electronic bit weight comparison means" (Claim 1) / "programmable control means" (Claim 1): Petitioner contended these means-plus-function limitations should be construed as a computer, a PLC, or their equivalents programmed to compare measured WOB against a user-set value and generate a proportional output signal. Guggari was argued to disclose these structures for performing the claimed functions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3 of the ’172 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.