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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s After-Final Response wherein, Applicant notifies Examiner of an error in the Final Rejection dated 12/31/25. In said Final Rejection, Examiner had written an incomplete 35 U.S.C. rejection of claims 24 and 27. Examiner has removed the rejection statement and incomplete discussion of said prior art as said language was the result of an alternative rejection that the Examiner did not ultimately end up relying upon. As such, the Final rejection presented below no longer has said 103 rejection statement or discussion associated with it and the confusion as to the completeness of said final rejection as been eliminated.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 24, 27, 33, 39, 40, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, Chinese Patent Publication CN106652696A (hereinfafter “Bai”) in view of Beck, U.S. 2009/0152868 (hereinafter “Beck”).
In Reference to Claim 24:
Bai discloses a subsea long distance power transmission system, comprising: an electrically driven (via electric motor 1) pumping station (2) arranged to produce a flow of pressurized working fluid; an electricity generating station (6) having an electrical generator coupled to a fluid powered machine, the generating station being situated underwater (Examiner notes that the said system uses ocean water with a controller that pumps with the direction of water for an additive effect and therefore is located under water) a supply duct (4) extending across the seabed between the pumping station and the generating station, that duct being arranged to convey the flow of working fluid from the pumping station to power the machine;
and a subsea installation connected to the generating station to be powered electrically by energy conveyed along the supply duct by the flow of working fluid; wherein the system is arranged as:a closed loop (Se, Figure 1), and further comprises a return duct (5) extending across the seabed between the generating station and the pumping station, that duct being arranged to convey the flow of working fluid from the generating station to the pumping station (2) for re-pressurisation.
Bai fails to disclose subsea installation connected to the generating station to be powered electrically by energy conveyed along the supply duct by the flow of working fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, remote power generator using ocean currents, Beck discloses a power generation facility 27 that through the use of an umbilical cord 35 electrical power from the generation facility to the control module 33 of the remote field 25 with subsea well heads for the wellheads ability to use the valves/actuators.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai with the teachings of Beck, specifically by modifying the generator of Bai to be capable of powering a remote field underwater with the addition of an umbilical cord because such a modification would solve the problem associated with hydrocarbon transportation long distances in remote deep locations where large power generation is difficult to reach (as discussed in paragraph [0007] of Beck).
In reference to Claim 40:
Bai discloses a method of transmitting power over a long distance underwater, the method comprising: supplying electric power (inherent as the electric motor 1 of the pump needs to be powered) from an electric power source to an electrically driven pumping station (2); using the electric power in the pumping station to produce a flow of pressurised working fluid ( See, Figure 1: through atleast conduit/pipes 2,4,5, and 9); conveying the flow of working fluid across the seabed (described as a tidual current generator which typically are located on the seabed) from the pumping station (2) to a machine (impeller part of generator 6) that is situated underwater and is remote from the pumping station; using the working fluid to power the machine; generating electric power in a generator (6) driven by the machine; and wherein the method further comprises: returning the flow of working fluid across the seabed from the machine to the pumping station (2), re-pressurising the flow and recirculating the flow back across the seabed to the machine in a closed loop. See, Figure 1 which illustrates a closed loop system.
Bai fails to explicitly disclose supplying the electric power from the generator to an electric power consumer situated underwater.
However, in the same field of endeavor, remote power generator using ocean currents, Beck discloses a power generation facility 27 that through the use of an umbilical cord 35 electrical power from the generation facility to the control module 33 of the remote field 25 with subsea well heads for the wellheads ability to use the valves/actuators.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai with the teachings of Beck, specifically by modifying the generator of Bai to be capable of powering a remote field underwater with the addition of an umbilical cord because such a modification would solve the problem associated with hydrocarbon transportation long distances in remote deep locations where large power generation is difficult to reach (as discussed in paragraph [0007] of Beck).
In Reference to Claim 27:
Bai further discloses wherein the working fluid is fresh water. Examiner notes that lakes undergo tidal currents due to the gravitational field created and as such since the system of Bai merely requires tidal currents to function it would be operational in a freshwater lake. Examiner notes that about 87% of surface water(most freshwater is formed in icecaps and glaciers and therefore not in actual a liquid state) that is fresh water is found in lakes. Furthermore, it is known by that oil dredging occurs in lakes (See, Venezuela) and therefore the combination of Bai as modified by Beck would still be applicable in a freshwater lake environment.
In Reference to Claim 33 and 42:
Bai further discloses wherein the pumping station (2) is underwater as the system is placed in the tidal environment and given the type of pump and the placement of tidal power generation systems the system to function would need to be submerged underwater.
In Reference to Claim 39:
Examiner notes that this claim is a claim of intended use and therefore Bai as modified only needs to be capable of operating at such a distance. Therefore, since Bai as modified has identical structure to that of Applicant’s. Examiner is capable of having said separation between the pumping and generating stations being at least 100km.
Claim(s) 25-26 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, Chinese Patent Publication CN106652696A (hereinfafter “Bai”) in view of Beck, U.S. 2009/0152868 (hereinafter “Beck”) as applied to Claim 24 and 40, respectively and in further view of Cooper et al., WIPO Publication WO2017/044852 (hereinafter “Cooper”).
In Reference to Claim 25, 26 and 41:
Bai discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 24 and 40, but fails to explicitly disclose a remote electric power source that is connected to the pumping station by a cable and wherein the electric power source is at an above surface location.
However, in the same field of endeavor, subsea power equipment, Cooper discloses providing electrical power from a boat (82) located above the sea surface via cable (84) for powering a power generation system using water hydro turbines. See, Paragraph [0027].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Bai, such that the electrical power supply for the pumping system (2) to transmit pumped fluid to the turbine (5) to thereby power the oil/gas field (as discussed in Beck) because such a means of providing electrical power to subsea apparatus from for oil/gas extractions from above sea level is a customary practice in the field of endeavor, typically by either a rig or boat (as depicted and taught by Cooper).
Claim(s) 28-29, 43-44, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, Chinese Patent Publication CN106652696A (hereinfafter “Bai”) in view of Beck, U.S. 2009/0152868 (hereinafter “Beck”) as applied to Claim 24 and 40, respectively and in further view of Flight et al., Canadian Patent Publication CA 2857581 (hereinafter “Flight”).
In Reference to Claim 28-29, 43-44, and 46:
Bai discloses all the limitations as recited in claim 24 and 40, respectively, but fails to explicitly disclose a production flowline that extends along the supply duct and is in fluid communication with a subsea source of hydrocarbon production fluid;wherein said production flowline is disposed within the supply duct; and surrounding the flow of production fluid with the flow of working fluid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Flight discloses a subsea well system for gas/hydrocarbon extraction wherein the riser (106 is responsible for providing the working fluid for energy generation to the power generation devices (Shown in Figure 2) and also contains within another conduit 116 the hydrocarbon (production flowline) extraction means) said hydrocarbon line extending along the supply duct and disposed within the supply duct, thereby surrounding the hydrocarbon line with working fluid.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Bai such that the production fluid and working fluid are within the same conduit as taught by Flight because such featuring is a customary practice in undersea oil dredging wherein the working fluid line also serves as a safety feature for being able to active a blow off preventer should the riser leak or fail. In addition, such a modification to Bai besides being known also is advantageous in that it would allow for the same system to be used for extraction of the hydrocarbon product that the actuator of Bai is utilizing and also would reduce the likelihood of damage to the hydrocarbon pipeline by having it surrounded (internal to the working fluid conduit) by the working fluid conduit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30-32, 34-38, and 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745