PTAB

IPR2017-00648

National Oilwell Varco LP v. Technical Industries Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Inspection of Metal Tubular Goods
  • Brief Description: The ’887 discloses a method for inspecting metal pipes, or "tubulars," used in the oil and gas industry. The method involves using an ultrasonic apparatus to measure wall thickness at multiple points and recording those measurements in an associated relationship with their longitudinal and circumferential positions on the tubular.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-4 by Assanelli

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Assanelli (SPE Paper on Collapse Behavior of Casings, May 1998).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Assanelli, published five years before the ’887 patent’s priority date, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Assanelli described a method for inspecting oilfield tubulars by moving an ultrasonic transducer longitudinally while rotating the tubular to obtain a complete scan of the wall. The system recorded wall thickness, axial position, and angular position on a "data acquisition" unit (meeting claim 1). Petitioner asserted this data was inherently digital and readable by a computer (meeting claim 2). Assanelli then used this data to generate three-dimensional finite element models of the tubular (meeting claim 3) and performed a finite element analysis (FEA) to simulate the effect of external collapse pressure and identify stresses on the tubular wall (meeting claim 4).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 4 over Kiefer and Assanelli

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kiefer (Patent 5,641,909) and Assanelli (SPE Paper on Collapse Behavior of Casings, May 1998).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kiefer discloses all elements of claims 1 and 2. Kiefer taught an ultrasonic inspection method that collects data on wall thickness, longitudinal position, and circumferential position, converts the data into digital form, and stores it for analysis. Assanelli supplemented Kiefer by explicitly teaching the additional element of claim 4: using such collected data to "compute the effect of stresses on the wall." Assanelli described performing an FEA on the data to determine the distribution of axial stresses at impending collapse.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kiefer and Assanelli because their teachings are interrelated. Both references described gathering the same three parameters (wall thickness, longitudinal, and circumferential location) to create a three-dimensional model of a tubular for analysis. A POSITA reading Kiefer, which taught recording data for "future reference and analysis," would have been motivated to apply the known stress analysis technique from Assanelli to that data. This combination represented applying a known method (Assanelli's FEA) to a known type of data (Kiefer's inspection data) to achieve the predictable result of stress analysis. Market forces, specifically the desire to use thinner, cheaper tubulars, would have further motivated this combination to ensure structural integrity.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The use of commercially available FEA software (e.g., ANSYS, NASTRAN) to conduct stress analyses on tubular inspection data was a well-known and straightforward task for an engineer at the time. The ’887 patent itself acknowledged that such data could be used in programs that "predict response of the tubular to various stressors," confirming the feasibility of the combination.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional grounds, including that claims 1-3 are anticipated by Kiefer; claims 1-3 are anticipated by Lam (Application # US 2003/0033880); claims 3-4 are obvious over Lam and Assanelli; and claim 3 is obvious over Lam and Kiefer. These grounds relied on similar mapping arguments and design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "positioning an ultrasonic means" (claims 1-4): Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to mean positioning the sensor anywhere along the wall of the tubular, whether on the inside or outside surface. The Petitioner contended that the plain language of the claim only requires positioning "along the wall" and that the patent specification explicitly states the "manner" of taking data is not important to the invention. This construction was argued to be critical for the anticipation argument against Kiefer, which discloses an internal inspection tool.
  • "associating the recording..." (claim 1): Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean keeping track of the data points in physical relation to each other to create at least a two-dimensional image, such as a table or graph. Petitioner contended that a construction limited to creating only a three-dimensional representation would improperly import a limitation from dependent claim 3 into independent claim 1, violating the doctrine of claim differentiation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’887 patent as unpatentable.