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 7/29/25 are acknowledged; claims 19-31, 33, and 35-38 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.
Claim(s) 19-22, 26-30, 33, and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley et al. (US 20120003043) in view of Stenevik (US 20110290497).
CLAIM 19: Cawley discloses a subsea fluid handling system for long term storage of carbon dioxide. The system comprises a plurality of offshore injection sites each configured to receive liquid-phase carbon dioxide from a vessel (see paragraph 0031 for plurality of injection wells; paragraph 0052 for subsea), the plurality of offshore injection sites each including a subsea template (“injection facility”, see paragraph 0052) arranged on a seabed at a wellhead for a drill hole to a subterranean void including a naturally occurring accommodation space (aquifer, see paragraph 0015), the subsea template including a utility system configured to cause the liquid-phase carbon dioxide from the vessel to be injected into the subterranean void including the accommodation space in response to control commands (paragraph 0052).
Cawley fails to disclose a control site configured to generate the control commands for each of the plurality of offshore injection sites, the control site is positioned at a location geographically separated from the plurality of offshore injection sites configured to receive the liquid-phase carbon dioxide for long-term storage in the subterranean void including the accommodation space and from the vessel providing the liquid-phase carbon dioxide for storage; wherein the subsea template of each of the plurality of offshore injection sites further includes a communication interface communicatively connected to the control site for bi-directional communication between the subsea template and the control site, and the subsea template is configured to receive the control commands via the communication interface and to send to the control site via the communication interface messages indicating a status of injection of the liquid-phase carbon dioxide into the subterranean void including the accommodation space.
Stenevik discloses a subsea hydrocarbon production system.
Stenevik discloses a control site (15) configured to generate the control commands for each of the plurality of offshore injection sites (wells, see Fig. 3), the control site is positioned at a location geographically separated from the plurality of offshore injection sites and from the vessel (see Fig. 3); wherein the subsea template (wells 30, 31, 32) of each of the plurality of offshore injection sites further includes a communication interface communicatively connected to the control site for bi-directional communication between the subsea template and the control site, and the subsea template is configured to receive the control commands via the communication interface and to send to the control site via the communication interface messages indicating a status of injection of the liquid-phase carbon dioxide into the subterranean void (see Fig. 4 showing set up for in and out transfer, relaying data from wells to host).
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 system of Cawley to include the data transfer shown in Stenevik with a reasonable expectation of success as Stenevik teaches that set up is flexible to maintain connections at all the templates.
CLAIM 20: Stenevik discloses the communication interface is configured to receive said control commands via at least one of a submerged fiber-optic cable (paragraph 0032).
CLAIM 21: Stenevik discloses wherein the control site is positioned at an onshore location (paragraph 0002 – host is shore based facility).
CLAIM 22: Stenevik discloses the control site is positioned at an offshore location geographically separated from the plurality of offshore injection sites (paragraph 0002 – offshore platform).
CLAIM 26: Stenevik discloses wherein the subsea template comprises a power input interface configured to receive electric energy for operating the utility system (power and data transferred).
CLAIM 27: The power input interface is configured to receive the electric energy to be used in connection with operating at least one of: a well at the wellhead (wells of either reference in the combination).
CLAIM 28: Stenevik discloses at least one power source configured to supply the electric power to the power input interface, which at least one power source is positioned at an onshore site (from the host, Stenevik paragraph 0002).
CLAIM 29: The utility system in the subsea template comprises a valve system (Cawley; 206, 208) configured to control the injection of the liquid-phase carbon dioxide into the subterranean void including the accommodation space; a hydraulic power unit configured to supply pressurized hydraulic fluid for operation of the valve system (see Stenevik, paragraph 0037); and at least one battery configured to store electric energy for use by the hydraulic power unit and the valve system as a backup to the electric energy received directly via the power input interface (see Stenevik, paragraph 0044, AUV batteries being part of the system).
CLAIM 30: The utility system in the subsea template comprises a valve system configured to control the injection of the liquid-phase carbon dioxide into the subterranean void including the accommodation space(see Cawley, valves 206, 208); an electrical wiring system configured to operate the valve system by means of electrical control signals (wires transferring electricity in Stenevik); and at least one battery configured to store electric energy for use by the electrical wiring system and the valve system as a backup to the electric energy received directly via the power input interface (Stenevik, paragraph 0044).
CLAIM 33: The subterranean void is a depleted oil reservoir (see Cawley, Abstract).
CLAIMS 35-38: These methods are inherent to the above structures.
Claim(s) 23-25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley in view of Stenevik in further view of Shaw (WO 2004016904, as cited by Applicant).
CLAIM 23: Cawley-Stenevik discloses the elements of claim 19 as discussed above.
The combination fails to disclose wherein one of the plurality of offshore injection sites comprises a buoy-based off-loading unit configured to be connected to the vessel and receive the liquid-phase carbon dioxide therefrom via a swivel assembly in the vessel.
Shaw discloses a utility system for injecting into subterranean voids.
Shaw discloses buoy based off-loading (619) configured to be connected to the vessel and receive the liquid from a swivel assembly in the vessel (see Figures).
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 system of the Cawley-Stenevik combination to include the buoy and swivel connection of Shaw with a reasonable expectation of success as a combination of known prior art elements according to known methods as the references deal with sending control commands down to a subsea system and thus have similar goals.
CLAIM 24: The buoy-based off-loading unit is connected to the subsea template via at least one injection riser (Shaw, 124), the at least one injection riser being configured to forward the liquid-phase carbon dioxide from the buoy-based off-loading unit to the subsea template (see Figures).
CLAIM 25: The combination fails to disclose at least one injection riser comprises at least one hold-back clamp securing the at least one injection riser to the seabed.
Examiner takes official notice that hold-back clamps are well known in the art as a means of securing elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Bishop-Shaw system with the known clamps with a reasonable expectation of success as the clamps would be used in the well known usage of securing the risers to the system.
CLAIM 31: Cawley-Stenevik discloses the elements of claim 19 as discussed above.
The combination fails to disclose least one storage tank holding at least one assisting liquid configured to facilitate at least one function associated with injecting the liquid-phase carbon dioxide into the subterranean void, the at least one assisting liquid comprising at least one of a de- hydrating liquid [[and]] or an anti-freezing liquid.
Shaw discloses at least one storage tank holding at least one assisting liquid configured to facilitate at least one function associated with injecting the fluid into the subterranean void, the at least one assisting liquid comprising at least one of a de-hydrating liquid and an anti-freezing liquid (see Shaw discussing additives for controlling hydrates and similar issues).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach “a subsea fluid handling system having, inter alia, a control site that generates control commands to cause the liquid-phase carbon dioxide received from a vessel to be injected into a subterranean void including a naturally occurring accommodation space, where the subterranean void is one of a plurality of offshore injection sites, and where the control site is positioned at a location qeoqraphically separated from the injection sites configured to receive the liquid-phase carbon dioxide and the vessel providing the liquid-phase carbon dioxide for storage, and where each of the plurality of offshore injection sites includes a subsea template arranged on a seabed that includes a communication interface for bi-directional communication between the subsea template and the control site, and the subsea template is configured to receive the control commands via the communication interface and to send to the control site via the communication interface messages indicating a status of injection of the liquid-phase carbon dioxide into the subterranean void including the accommodation space, as in amended Claim 19,” (Remarks, pages 13-14). First, it is noted that Applicant’s paraphrasing of the claim language and random underlining does not assist the office in ascertaining which claimed elements Applicant asserts is missing. As best understood, Applicant is asserting the control site’s location and communication interface are not taught by the prior art. As discussed above, Cawley discloses offshore injection sites as described in the claims. Stenevik discloses communication between a host facility (15) and injection sites (such as wells 19, 20, 21) that are geographically separated from it. The DC/FO network communicates between the locations via the fiber optic cables. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to combine the references as discussed above. Applicant has not offered any reasoning that the prior art fails to meet these claim elements.
Applicant further asserts that Stenevik does not teach “electric energy for operating the system is provided separately from data” with respect to claims 26-28 (Remarks, page 15). However, none of those claims require “separately” and Applicant has not cited any limitation to support that assertion. Furthermore, the DC/FO network does separate the power and the data. The power is the “DC” portion, the data is the “FO” portion.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be properly motivated to combine the references. Applicant has not offered any reasoning that the combination would be hindsight reasoning.
With respect to the combination of Cawley, Stenevik, and Shaw, as best can be determined Applicant is asserting that Shaw does not fix any of the alleged shortcomings of the Cawley and Stenevik combination. Therefore, the reasoning above applies to the combination including Shaw as well.
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