DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gomes Martins et al. (US 10,947,822).
As concerns claim 1, Gomes Martins shows a subsea distribution system (Fig. 6, 6A & 7B) comprising: a first unitary manifold (1a) composed of a unitary material (col 9, In 6-9: the body 1a is a continuous block of material, i.e. a steel forging, that has all of the holes drilled or machined into the block of material); a plurality of element connection points (1b with inlet hubs 4b & 1c with outlet hubs 4c) in the form of at least one of clamp connections (col 9, ln 4-6: the end caps 1b, 1c may be coupled to the body 1a with other fastening methods, i.e. a clamp) on the first manifold (the end caps 1b, 1c are coupled to the ends 1y, 1z of the body 1a at holes 3); and a plurality of manifold connection points (4a) on the first manifold (via holes 2). The end caps (1b, 1c) with the hubs (4b, 4c) of Gomes Martins coupled to the body (1a) at the holes (3) are being interpreted as a plurality of element connection points based on the fact that the holes (3) are responsible for directing the flow of fluid to and from the manifold via flow lines (not show) that are coupled to the inlet hubs (4b) and the outlet hubs (4c) thereby providing the connection between the manifold and other manifolds or components (col 5, ln 41-47). The hubs (4a) of Gomes Martins coupled to the body (1a) at the holes (2) are being interpreted as a plurality of manifold connection points based on the fact the holes (2) are responsible for receiving the fluid flow to the manifold via the inlet hubs (4a) that comes from the wells (originating from the Christmas trees) and/or other manifolds (col 5, ln 37-40).
As concerns claim 2, Gomes Martins shows wherein the plurality of element connection points comprises clamp connections (col 9, ln 4-6: the end caps 1b, 1c may be coupled to the body 1a with other fastening methods, i.e. a clamp).
As concerns claim 3, Gomes Martins shows wherein the plurality of element connection points comprises multi-quick connections (the plurality of clamp connections, as taught by Gomes Martins, is being interpreted as multi-quick connections as no further structure is required by the claim).
As concerns claim 4, Gomes Martins shows at least one additional unitary manifold (other manifolds) connected to the first unitary manifold.
As concerns claim 5, Gomes Martins shows wherein the first unitary manifold is connected to the at least one additional unitary manifold using bolts with threaded bars (Fig. 9).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes Martins et al. alone.
As concerns claim 6, Gomes Martins shows wherein the first unitary manifold is manufactured by forging (col 9, In 6-9). Gomes Martins discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first manifold is manufactured with additive manufacturing. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Furthermore, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Therefore, Gomes Martins meets the claim language.
Claims 7, 8, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. (US 2018/0306007) and further in view of Gomes Martins.
As concerns claim 7, Morrison shows an offshore recovery system (100) comprising: a surface platform or floating production unit (Fig. 1); at least one umbilical (144) or hydraulic flying lead connected to the surface platform or floating production unit (Fig. 1); a first manifold (116) connected to the at least one umbilical or hydraulic flying lead (Fig. 1); and at least one piping tree (120) connected to the first manifold (Fig. 1). Morrison discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first manifold comprises a unitary material; and a plurality of element connection points in the form of at least one of clamp connections or multi-quick connections on the first manifold. Gomes Martins teaches a first unitary manifold (1a) composed of a unitary material (col 9, In 6-9: the body 1a is a continuous block of material, i.e. a steel forging, that has all of the holes drilled or machined into the block of material); and a plurality of element connection points (1b with inlet hubs 4b & 1c with outlet hubs 4c) in the form of at least one of clamp connections (col 9, ln 4-6: the end caps 1b, 1c may be coupled to the body 1a with other fastening methods, i.e. a clamp) on the first manifold (the end caps 1b, 1c are coupled to the ends 1y, 1z of the body 1a at holes 3). The end caps (1b, 1c) with the hubs (4b, 4c) of Gomes Martins coupled to the body (1a) at the holes (3) are being interpreted as a plurality of element connection points based on the fact that the holes (3) are responsible for directing the flow of fluid to and from the manifold via flow lines (not show) that are coupled to the inlet hubs (4b) and the outlet hubs (4c) thereby providing the connection between the manifold and other manifolds or components (col 5, ln 41-47). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Morrison, as taught by Gomes Martins, to form the first manifold as a unitary solid block for the expected benefit of increasing the strength of the manifold and eliminating the need for welding together multiple elements to form the manifold. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the first manifold as a unitary solid block would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves efficiency of the system design.
As concerns claim 8, the combination teaches wherein the at least one umbilical or hydraulic flying lead is connected to the first unitary manifold by a section of unitary tubing (Morrison: 152; Gomes Martins: 15a-15c; col 11, In 24-28).
As concerns claim 10, the combination teaches at least one additional unitary manifold (Gomes Martins: other manifolds) connected to the first unitary manifold using bolts with threaded bars (Gomes Martins: Fig. 9).
As concerns claim 11, the combination teaches wherein the at least one umbilical or hydraulic flying lead is connected to the first unitary manifold using clamp connections (Gomes Martins: a plurality of connection points (1b with inlet hubs 4b & 1c with outlet hubs 4c) in the form of at least one of clamp connections (col 9, ln 4-6: the end caps 1b, 1c may be coupled to the body 1a with other fastening methods, i.e. a clamp) on the first manifold (the end caps 1b, 1c are coupled to the ends 1y, 1z of the body 1a at holes 3). The end caps (1b, 1c) with the hubs (4b, 4c) of Gomes Martins coupled to the body (1a) at the holes (3) are being interpreted as a plurality of connection points based on the fact that the holes (3) are responsible for directing the flow of fluid to and from the manifold via flow lines (not show) that are coupled to the inlet hubs (4b) and the outlet hubs (4c) thereby providing the connection between the manifold and other manifolds or components (col 5, ln 41-47)).
As concerns claim 12, the combination teaches wherein the first unitary manifold comprises at least one closed circuit of elements (Gomes Martins: 5) fluidly attached to other elements (Gomes Martins: 5) on the closed circuit.
As concerns claim 13, the combination teaches wherein the first unitary manifold is manufactured by forging (Gomes Martins: col 9, In 6-9). The combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first manifold is manufactured with additive manufacturing. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Furthermore, if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Therefore, the combination meets the claim language.
As concerns claim 14, Morrison shows a subsea distribution connection system (100) comprising: an umbilical (144) or hydraulic flying lead; a section of tubing (152) comprising a unitary material (paragraph 0044), fluidly connected to the umbilical or hydraulic flying lead (Fig. 1); and a manifold (116) fluidly connected to the unitary section of tubing (Fig. 1). Morrison discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the section of tubing is composed of a unitary material, and wherein the manifold is composed of a unitary material; and a plurality of element connection points in the form of at least one of clamp connections or multi-quick connections on the first manifold. Gomes Martins teaches a section of tubing (15a-15c) composed of a unitary material (col 11, In 24-28); a unitary manifold (1a) composed of a unitary material (col 9, In 6-9: the body 1a is a continuous block of material, i.e. a steel forging, that has all of the holes drilled or machined into the block of material); and a plurality of element connection points (1b with inlet hubs 4b & 1c with outlet hubs 4c) in the form of at least one of clamp connections (col 9, ln 4-6: the end caps 1b, 1c may be coupled to the body 1a with other fastening methods, i.e. a clamp) on the first manifold (the end caps 1b, 1c are coupled to the ends 1y, 1z of the body 1a at holes 3). The end caps (1b, 1c) with the hubs (4b, 4c) of Gomes Martins coupled to the body (1a) at the holes (3) are being interpreted as a plurality of element connection points based on the fact that the holes (3) are responsible for directing the flow of fluid to and from the manifold via flow lines (not show) that are coupled to the inlet hubs (4b) and the outlet hubs (4c) thereby providing the connection between the manifold and other manifolds or components (col 5, ln 41-47). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Morrison, as taught by Gomes Martins, to form the section of tubing from a unitary material and the manifold as a unitary solid block for the expected benefit of increasing the strength of the section of tubing and the manifold and eliminating the need for welding together multiple elements to form the section of tubing and the manifold. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the section of tubing from a unitary material and the manifold as a unitary solid block would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves efficiency of the system design.
As concerns claim 16, Morrison shows an adaptor (148, 300) fluidly connecting the umbilical or hydraulic flying lead with the unitary section of tubing (Fig. 1 & 3).
As concerns claim 17, Morrison shows wherein the adaptor changes from a diameter of the umbilical or hydraulic flying lead to a diameter of the unitary section of tubing (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 18, Morrison shows a flanged connection or fitting fluidly connecting the unitary section of tubing with the manifold (Fig. 5; paragraph 0050).
As concerns claim 19, Morrison shows wherein the flanged connection or fitting connects to multiple locations on the manifold (Fig. 5; paragraph 0050).
As concerns claim 20, Morrison shows wherein the umbilical or hydraulic flying lead further comprises control wiring, power wiring, communications wiring, or hydraulic conduits (paragraph 0044 & 0045).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison et al. and Gomes Martins et al. as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Dezen et al. (US 7,032,673).
As concerns claims 9 and 15, the combination of Morrison and Gomes Martins discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the unitary section of tubing is prefabricated or shaped into a required configuration. Dezen teaches wherein a unitary section of tubing is prefabricated or shaped into a required configuration (col 1, In 21- 23). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Morrison and Gomes Martins, as taught by Dezen, to prefabricate the unitary section of tubing for the expected benefit of preforming the tubing based on a required configuration and eliminating the need of welding multiple pieces of tubing together. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that prefabricating the unitary section of tubing would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves efficiency of the system design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments regarding Gomes Martins are noted, especially wherein the plurality of element connection points is in the form of at least one of clamp connections or multi-quick connections on the first manifold, but the elements are shown above in the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hestetun (US 2022/0373120) shows a plurality of connection points in the form of clamp connections on a manifold (Fig. 13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679