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 5/7/26 are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 32-37, 40, and 41-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ross, GB 2531601, as cited by Applicant).
CLAIM 32: Ross discloses a subsea control bundle umbilical comprising: a carrier pipe (56) ;a bundle of two or more elongate functional elements being tubes and/or cables that extend longitudinally within the carrier pipe (see claim 3); and spacers (10) spaced apart longitudinally along the bundle, the spacers supporting the functional elements of the bundle and being movable longitudinally relative to the carrier pipe (via bearings 42); wherein the carrier pipe contains no tubes with an inner diameter of greater than 70mm (see disclosure).
ALTERNATIVELY, Ross discloses a subsea control bundle umbilical comprising: a carrier pipe (56) ;a bundle of two or more elongate functional elements being cables that extend longitudinally within the carrier pipe (see discussion of elongate elements “Other elongate elements of a subsea production installation follow similar generally parallel paths, such as: cables for supplying electrical power and for carrying data; umbilicals; and service fluid tubing.”); and spacers (10) spaced apart longitudinally along the bundle, the spacers supporting the functional elements of the bundle and being movable longitudinally relative to the carrier pipe (via bearings 42); wherein the carrier pipe contains no tubes with an inner diameter of greater than 70mm (no tubes selected; only cables in this interpretation).
CLAIM 33: Any tube within the carrier pipe contains only a control fluid or a service fluid for supporting production of hydrocarbons (see page 2, lines 10-18 discussing pressurized water).
CLAIMS 34 and 35: At least one connection head that is positioned at an end of the carrier pipe and comprises connection elements that are in fluid communication or electrical contact with respective functional elements of the bundle, wherein the at least one connection head is a towhead that comprises a towing line attachment point supported by a frame configured for towing the umbilical before installation (see page 3, lines 4-14 discussing integrating the bundle and towhead as a desired goal of the disclosure).
CLAIM 36: The carrier pipe is a monolithic pipe of polymer or polymer composite material (page 11, lines 23-27 discussing composites).
CLAIM 37: The carrier pipe comprises a series of pipe lengths joined end to end (see page 6, lines 31-33 discussing “at least one pipe string” which teaches a plurality of strings attached).
CLAIM 47: Ross discloses the umbilical of claim 32 (see above), wherein at least one of the spacers comprises a stack of two or more blocks (16) and at least one opening that extends along a longitudinal (24) axis through the spacer at an interface between abutting blocks (16/18) of the stack to receive a respective elongate functional element of the umbilical (receives rollers 42), wherein outer blocks of the stack support rollers that are angularly spaced in a circular array (see Figures).
CLAIM 40: The interface is substantially planar but is interrupted by at least one open ended channel for receiving a respective one of the functional elements (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 41: Each opening is defined by alignment between opposed channels in the abutting blocks of the stack (see Fig. 1).
CLAIM 42: Each block of the stack has a thickness on the longitudinal axis that exceeds its height on an axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and to the interface (thickness of block is curved, longer than the height, see Fig. 6).
CLAIM 43: The outer blocks define chamfered corners (20) of the spacer at which the rollers are supported.
CLAIM 44: The rollers are supported by brackets (44) that each embrace one of the outer blocks.
CLAIM 45: Each bracket engages at least two blocks of the stack (engagement effected through bolts 36 to second block).
CLAIM 46: One or more inner blocks of the stack are substantially cuboidal (see Fig. 6; cupid face that abuts).
CLAIM 48: Frictional force between the abutting blocks of the spacer and one or more of the functional elements at the interface exceeds resistance to movement of the spacer relative to the carrier pipe in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (see page 10, lines 12-19 discussing frictional forces).
CLAIM 49: The carrier pipe exerts radially inward pressure on the spacer that clamps the functional elements between abutting blocks of the stack (via rollers 42).
CLAIM 50: The inward pressure exerted by the carrier pipe deflects the abutting blocks of the stack into contact along their interface (see page 6, lines 1-9 discussing pressure deflecting pipe).
CLAIM 51: Ross discloses a subsea installation comprising at least one subsea control umbilical, the at least one subsea control umbilical comprising a carrier pipe (56); a bundle of two or more elongate functional elements being tubes and/or cables that extend longitudinally within the carrier pipe (see claim 3); and spacers (10) spaced apart longitudinally along the bundle, the spacers supporting the functional elements of the bundle and being movable longitudinally relative to the carrier pipe (via rollers 42); wherein the carrier pipe contains no tubes with an inner diameter of greater than 70mm (see disclosure).
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.
Claim(s) 32-38, 40-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross.
CLAIM 38: Ross discloses the elements of claim 32 as discussed above.
Ross fails to disclose wherein the carrier pipe has an outer diameter of no greater than ten inches (254mm).
Ross teaches to minimize the width of the of the pipe to reduce congestion on the seabed (see page 2, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter be no greater than 10 inches as the optimization of a results effective variable as lower diameter would result in less congestion.
CLAIM 32: Ross discloses a subsea control bundle umbilical comprising: a carrier pipe (56) ;a bundle of two or more elongate functional elements being tubes and/or cables that extend longitudinally within the carrier pipe (see claim 3); and spacers (10) spaced apart longitudinally along the bundle, the spacers supporting the functional elements of the bundle and being movable longitudinally relative to the carrier pipe (via bearings 42);
Ross fails to disclose wherein the carrier pipe contains no tubes with an inner diameter of greater than 70mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the umbilical of Ross to remove any tube greater than 70mm with a reasonable expectation of success as the omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired and it would be desirable to supply power and data to a subsea element without involving flow lines or other large diameter tools to allow for redundancy in the system and not rely of the flow line for such controls.
The remaining dependent claims are discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 102 rejection, Applicant asserts the 102 rejection is improper because a 103 rejection with the same primary reference exists. Rejections in the alternative are appropriate and useful for compact prosecution. As Applicant has failed to address any material deficiencies with the 102 rejections, they are maintained.
With respect to the 103 rejection, Applicant first asserts the proposed modification would render the prior art unfit for its intended purpose. To come to this conclusion, Applicant relies on their interpretation that the removal of larger pipes would remove key elements. However, this is not supported by the evidence of record. As discussed in MPEP 2145, argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary.
Regarding the specific language of claim 32, Applicant’s interpretation is not consistent with the claim language. Applicant wants the limitation “functional elements being tubes” and the limitation “the carrier pipe contains no tubes…” to refer to two different tube sets. This interpretation would raise 112 issues as to clarify the distinction between the two tubes. The cleaner, more clear interpretation that results from reading the claim as a whole is that the two tubes references are to the same tubes. As such, the comprising analysis and the optional limitation analysis are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights