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 .
The amended claims filed 6/24/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-10 and 12-18 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. (US 20050051072; Roodenburg ‘072) in view of Roodenburg et al. (US 6763898; Roodenburg ‘898).
CLAIM 1: Roodenburg ‘072 discloses a well intervention monohull vessel (7). Wherein the vessel has a deck (10). The deck comprises a tower type open derrick structure (1, a MPT as discussed in Applicant’s specification) disposed on the deck (see Fig. 1). A moon pool door (303/305) is capable of being flush with the deck, wherein the moon pool door is a drill floor of the vessel (paragraph 0072). An intervention lift frame (19) disposed on the deck, the lift frame configured to be moved from a stowed position to a well center position of the deck (see Fig. 3, paragraph 0042, unit 19 moves along rails 101). At least one crane (3) disposed on the deck a predefined lateral distance away from the well center position of the deck (see Fig. 3).
Roodenburg ‘072 fails to disclose a sole point land out configured to provide a sole point of riser tension contact with subsea equipment being connected to a top of the derrick structure, such that riser tension is conveyed from the subsea equipment solely through the sole point land out to the top of the derrick structure
Roodenburg ‘898 discloses a vessel.
The vessel has a tower (mast 1) with sole point land outs configured to provide a sole point of a riser tension contact with subsea equipment, the subsea equipment being connected to a top of the derrick structure, such that riser tension is conveyed from the subsea equipment solely through the sole point land out to the top of the derrick structure (cables on lifting means 2 or 4 being the land outs, sole point of contact being with the lifting means which are at the top as shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Roodenburg ‘072 to have the sole point lead outs of Roodenburg ‘898 as Roodenburg ‘898 teaches the placement of such a contact/single land system minimizes the space needed on the deck (see col. 6, lines 48-55).
CLAIM 2: The moon pool door adapted to transport at the subsea equipment (see paragraph 0072).
CLAIM 3: Roodenburg ‘072 fails to disclose wherein the moon pool door comprises a power slip and the step of running the at least one subsea equipment further comprises activating the power slip.
Examiner takes official notice that power slips are well known in the art as a means of securing pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the moon pool of Roodenburg ‘072 to contain a well-known power slip as described in the claim as a combination of known prior art elements in which the power slip would function in the same predictable manner in the combination as it does in standard well intervention vessels to secure pipe without manual handling to increase safety on the drill floor.
CLAIM 4: The subsea equipment comprises an intervention riser system; and an emergency disconnect package (see intervention vessel and further language is still “capable” from claim 2).
CLAIM 5: The sole point land out is adapted to interact with the subsea equipment (see Roodenburg ‘898, such as drill strings).
CLAIM 6: The intervention lift frame is a self-standing skidding intervention lift frame of box construction (see Fig. 5).
CLAIM 7: Roodenburg ‘072 fails to disclose at least one surface coiled tubing reel disposed on the deck.
Examiner takes official notice that coiled tubing reels are well known in the art as a means of securing coiled tubing for use in well intervention procedures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vessel of the combination to contain a well-known coiled tubing reel as described in the claim as a combination of known prior art elements in which the coiled tubing reel would function in the same predictable manner in the combination as it does in standard well intervention vessels as Applicant admits it is heavy equipment associated with well intervention (Specification, paragraph 0009).
CLAIM 8: Roodenburg ‘072 discloses at least one riser storage area (117).
CLAIM 9: Roodenburg ‘072 discloses at least one rail (345, 347, 351, 353); and at least one pallet (5).
CLAIM 10: Roodenburg ‘072 fails to disclose at least one subsea tree.
Examiner takes official notice that subsea trees are well known in the art as equipment used in well intervention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the vessel of the combination to contain a well-known subsea tree as described in the claim as a combination of known prior art elements in which the subsea tree would function in the same predictable manner in the combination as it does in standard well intervention vessels as Applicant admits it is heavy equipment associated with well intervention (Specification, paragraph 0009).
CLAIM 12: Roodenburg ‘072 at least one drawworks in connection with the sole point land out (to reel in and out the hoist line).
CLAIMS 13-17: The methods of these claims are inherent to the above structures.
CLAIM 18: The sole point land out is capable of interacting with well intervention equipment (see discussion of drill strings; further the “capable” language is functional).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments, an alternative lift frame has been identified on the prior art that meets the amended language about being stowed by the crane. The arguments with respect that aspect are moot.
With respect to the sole point land out, as discussed in the Appellate record of this application, the claim language does not require only a single sole point land out. The fact that the prior art of Roodenburg ‘898 discloses two sole point land outs does not mean it fails to disclose one. The two hoists of Roodenburg ‘898 are capable of functioning separately, and in that case they would act as the sole point of tension.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
