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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the bending of the second section is induced under compression while claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites the bending of the second section is induced using a wire extending from a second vessel, a remotely operated vehicle, or an autonomous underwater vehicle. The original disclosure does not describe the bending of the second section is induced using multiple methods simultaneously (using a wire extending from a vessel, an ROV, or an AUV; inducing bending through compression). Therefore, the bending of the second section being induced by multiple methods simultaneously as required by claim 2 represents new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3 - 6, 10 - 12, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilstad et al. (US 2020/0318759) in view of Messias et al. (US 2020/0032619).
Regarding claim 1, Ilstad discloses a method of installing a subsea pipeline having a direct tie-in between a first section (section comprising manifold header assembly 20) of the pipeline (35) and a subsea structure (40), wherein, after installation, the first section is located at a tie-in position (position at which manifold header 67 is connected to anchor 51), the method comprising: laying at least a portion of the pipeline (35) from a laying vessel (unlabeled laying vessel, see Fig. 11) moving in a laying direction, the at least a portion of the pipeline including the first section and a second section (section 62 of the pipeline), such that the first section is beyond the tie-in position in the laying direction, and the first section and the tie-in position are beyond the second section in the laying direction (paragraphs 0032 and 0033); either before, during or after said laying, configuring the second section such that bending will be induced (via wire tensioning system 63) in the second section (62) of the at least a portion of the pipeline when the first section is pushed or pulled back to the tie-in position, wherein configuring the second section includes displacing the second section (62) horizontally and/or vertically while bending using a wire (tensioning wire system 63) extending from a second vessel or a remotely operated vehicle; and pushing or pulling the first section back to the tie-in position (paragraphs 0032 and 0033), wherein responsive to said pushing or pulling, bending is induced (via system 63) in the second section (Figs. 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8, and 10 - 16; paragraphs 0032, 0033, 0067 - 0069, 0078, 0079, 0080, and 0082). Examiner takes the position that paragraphs 0032 and 0033 of Ilstad teach axial adjustment of the manifold header at the end of the pipeline can be made in two, opposite directions. Therefore, Ilstad teaches a scenario in which a first section of the pipeline is beyond the tie-in position in the laying direction, and the first section and the tie-in position are beyond the second section in the laying direction, and pushing or pulling the first section back to the tie-in position. Assuming arguendo that Ilstad does not explicitly teach a first section of the pipeline is beyond the tie-in position in the laying direction, and the first section and the tie-in position are beyond the second section in the laying direction, and pushing or pulling the first section back to the tie-in position, given the apparatus as disclosed above, the aforementioned method steps would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ilstad fails to disclose bending using a wire extending from one of a second vessel, an ROV, or an AUV, the wire being directly connected to the second section such that the vertical or horizontal displacement of the second section provides an initial degree of bending in the second section. Messias teaches bending a second section using a wire (umbilical is functionally equivalent to a wire) extending from a second vessel (Although Messias does not specifically teach the umbilical extends from a second vessel, Examiner takes the position that it is well-known in the art to connect an umbilical between a surface vessel and a structural component located at the bottom of a body of water.), the wire being directly connected to the second section (Messias teaches a wire tensioning system (wire tensioner 230) comprising a rotating drum actuated by an ROV as described in paragraph 0066 and the wire tensioning system is directly connected to the second section as shown in Fig. 5(a).) such that the vertical or horizontal displacement of the second section provides an initial degree of bending in the second section (Fig. 5(a); paragraph 0066). Ilstad does not explicitly teach how the wire tensioning system is actuated and, therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the wire tensioning system as disclosed above with the wire extending from an ROV wherein the wire is directly connected to the second section of the pipeline as taught by Messias to provide a means for adjusting the bending of the second section from a remote location such as a surface vessel.
Regarding claim 3, Ilstad further discloses the first section (20) of the pipeline includes an end of the pipeline (35) (Figs. 4 and 5). Fig. 2 of Ilstad, although directed to a different embodiment, more clearly illustrates a manifold header (1) attached to the end of a pipeline (18).
Regarding claim 4, Ilstad further discloses the first section (67) of the pipeline includes an intermediate section of the pipeline (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Ilstad further discloses said laying includes laying the first section (20) of the pipeline (35) onto the subsea structure (40) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Ilstad further discloses the first section (20) of the pipeline (35) includes an integral manifold (manifold header 21) for direct tie-in to the subsea structure (40) (Fig. 8; paragraphs 0068 and 0072).
Regarding claim 10, Ilstad further discloses the first section (20) is pulled back to the tie-in position using a winch located on the laying vessel or a seabed, or the ROV (65) (Fig. 10; paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 11, Ilstad further discloses the first section (20) is pulled back to the tie-in position using the laying vessel (56), a winch located on the laying vessel or a seabed, or the ROV (65) connected to the second section (62) (Fig. 10; paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 12, Ilstad further discloses the at least a portion of the pipeline (35) includes a collar (forging 23) configured to engage with a fine guide (jaws 47) of the subsea structure to pull the first section back towards the tie-in position as the first section is lowered towards the subsea structure (40) (Figs. 4, 7, and 8; paragraphs 0067 and 0073).
Regarding claim 18, Ilstad further discloses the second section (62) is not located in a first free span of the pipeline (35), wherein the first free span is a portion of the pipeline that is adjacent to the tie-in position and is not in contact with a seabed (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 19, Ilstad further discloses the subsea structure (40) is a template (Figs. 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 20, Ilstad further discloses the second section (62) rests on a sea floor (Fig. 10 shows the left side of section 62 resting on the sea floor 53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 - 9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 6, 10 - 12, and 18 - 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
2/3/2026