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 3/6/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-10 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) 1-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (GB 2277761) 8573305) in view of Salem et al. (US 10072467).
CLAIM 1: Marshall discloses a system for flexibilization of riser support in stationary units. The system comprises: an upper I-tube (32); a lower I-tube (25); a bell mouth (see Fig. 2); an adapter helmet (27) configured to enter the bell mouth (Fig. 2).
Reddy fails to disclose an upper extension pipe; an intermediate extension pipe; a lower extension pipe; and a varied cross-section pipe, wherein a lower end of the lower extension pipe is connected in series to the varied cross-section pipe and the lower extension pipe is configured to slide inside the adapter element.
Salem discloses a stress joint configuration.
Salem discloses a varied cross section pipe (tapered stress joint) that is attached to a series of tubulars (Fig. 6A) acting as lower extension pipe. It is capable of sliding into the I-tube of Marshall.
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 support system of Marshall with the joint of Salem with a reasonable expectation of success as the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results as the joint of Salem would serve the same function of connecting the system to ensure safe and reliable production (see col. 4, lines 38-47).
CLAIM 2: The upper extension pipe is positioned at the upper end of the system and has a lower flange configured to connect to the section of intermediate extension pipe (see Salem Fig. 6A showing connections between extension pipes).
CLAIM 3: The number and length of sections of the intermediate extension pipe depend on the distance between the upper I- tube and the lower I-tube (see Salem, Fig. 6A, this is obvious engineering principle, that the parts needed to be connected and thus the distance between the parts determines the number and length of connections).
CLAIM 4: The lower end of the intermediate extension pipe is configured to connect to the section of lower extension pipe (see Salem, Fig. 6A).
CLAIM 5: The section of the lower extension pipe is configured to promote a curvature inside the adapter helmet (see Marshall, Fig. 2).
CLAIM 6: The upper extension pipe, the intermediate extension pipe, and the lower extension pipe are configured to connect to each other by compact type flanges or circumferential welds (see Salem, flanges such as 76, 82).
CLAIM 7: A lower end of the lower extension pipe is connected to a stress joint or flexible joint, replacing the varied cross- section pipe (Marshall, claim 4).
CLAIM 9: A lower end of the intermediate extension pipe is configured to connect to the section of lower extension pipe (see Salem, Fig. 6A).
CLAIM 10: The section of the lower extension pipe is configured to promote a curvature inside the adapter helmet (see Salem, Fig. 1, 1A).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Salem in further view of Reddy (US 8573350).
CLAIM 8: Marshall-Salem discloses the structure of this claim as discussed above and installing it is inherent to the system.
Marshall-Salem fails to disclose the latching dogs and cables.
Reddy discloses a connection system.
Reddy discloses securing the system with dogs (110) and cables (132).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the installation of the system of Marshall-Salem to utilize the dogs and cables of Reddy with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known installation means used to secure parts in the same manner in the prior art and the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 3/6/26 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.
The prior art failed to show the adapter helmet and the bell mouth configured as claimed; new art has been provided.
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 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