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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 06/02/2023, 10/12/2023 and 11/17/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ragnar et al. (GB 2608418; hereinafter “Ragnar”).
Regarding claim 1, Ragnar teaches a system (Figure 6 and 7) to test barrier pressure (Pages 13-15), comprising: a Christmas Tree/XT (202) coupled to a wellbore (8; Figures 6-7), the wellbore (8) including a downhole pressure barrier (4a; Figures 6-7), the XT comprising:
a first valve (4a) along a flow path (‘X’; See annotated Figure 6); and
a second valve (4I; Figure 6) coupled to the flow path (See annotated Figure 6);
a testing unit (212 and 224; Figures 6-7), comprising:
a vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7) fluidly coupled to the flow path (Figures 6-7 demonstrates the outer housing of 240 being connected to the flow path ‘X’), wherein the second valve is between the vessel and the first valve (the second valve 4I is between the outer housing of 240, i.e. vessel, and the first valve 4a);
a fluid mover (piston 212; Pages 14-15; Figures 6-7) associated with the vessel (outer housing of 240) to draw fluid into or to drive fluid out of the vessel (Pages 14-15); and
an actuator (224; Figures 6-7) coupled to the fluid mover (piston 212) to control operation of the fluid mover (Pages 14-15);
wherein the testing unit (212 and 224; Figures 6-7) is configured to draw a volume of fluid out of the XT (202; Pages 14-15) in response to a command to perform a pressure test (Pages 14-15) on the at least one pressure barrier (4a; Pages 14-15), the testing unit (212 and 224; Figures 6-7) to further return the volume of fluid to the XT (202) after completion of the pressure test (Page 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
907
1666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ragnar teaches wherein the fluid mover (piston 212; Pages 14-15; Figures 6-7) is a piston (212) arranged within the vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, Ragnar teaches wherein the actuator (224; Figures 6-7) is an electrically driven rotary to linear motion device (Page 14).
Regarding claim 4, Ragnar teaches wherein the pressure test (Pages 14-15) is performed on at least one of the first valve (4a; Pages 14-15).
Regarding claim 5, Ragnar teaches a third valve (216c; Figure 6) coupled to the flow path (‘X’; See annotated Figure 6), the third valve (216c) being fluidly coupled to a fluid source (218) for injecting a second fluid (Pages 9 and 12-13) into the XT (202).
Regarding claim 7, Ragnar teaches a fourth valve (4d; Figure 6) positioned within a connecting flow path (portion of flow path ‘X’ between first valve 4a and second valve 4I; See annotated Figure 6) between the first valve (4a) and the second valve (4I).
Regarding claim 9, Ragnar teaches wherein the testing unit (212 and 224) is directly coupled to the XT (202) at a port (elements 212 and 224 are directly connected to the XT 202 through the port of valve 216a; See Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 10, Ragnar teaches wherein the actuator (224; Figures 6-7) is configured to be controlled by a subsea control system (the actuator 224 is actuated/driven in order to draw fluid form the XT 202 and the inject said drawn fluid back into the XT 202 through the use of a controller; Pages 2, 4, 6, 14-15; Abstract) and the XT (202) is a subsea XT (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Ragnar teaches a method, comprising:
determining one or more barriers (4a; Figure 6) for pressure testing (Pages 14-15);
operating one or more valves (4c, 4e, 4f, 4I, 4j) to isolate the one or more barriers (pages 14-15);
causing a fluid mover (212; Pages 14-15) to draw a quantity of fluid into a vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7);
conducting one or more pressure testing operations (Pages 14-15); and
causing the fluid mover (212; Pages 14-15) to drive the quantity of fluid out of the vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7) after completion of the one or more pressure testing operations (Pages 14-15).
Regarding claim 12, Ragnar teaches wherein the quantity of fluid (Pages 14-15) is removed from a Christmas Tree/XT (Pages 14-15).
Regarding claim 14, Ragnar teaches wherein the quantity of fluid (Page 15) is returned to the XT (202) after completion of the pressure testing (Page 15).
Regarding claim 15, Ragnar teaches wherein the one or more barriers (4a) include at a master valve (4a; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Ragnar teaches wherein the pressure testing (pages 14-15) occurs in a subsea environment (Abstract; Page 1).
Regarding claim 17, Ragnar teaches a system (Figure 6 and 7) to test barrier pressure (Pages 13-15), comprising:
a well component (XT 202; Figures 6-7) including at least a first valve (4a) and a second valve (4I) arranged along a flow path (‘X’; See annotated Figure 6), the flow path (‘X’) being coupled to a well (8);
a downhole pressure barrier (Page 3) positioned in the well (8);
a vessel fluidly (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7) coupled to the well component (Figures 6-7 demonstrates the outer housing of 240 being connected to the flow path ‘X’ of the XT 202);
and a controllable fluid mover (piston 212; Pages 14-15; Figures 6-7) associated with the vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7), the controllable fluid mover (piston 212) configured to decrease a pressure within the vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7) to draw a fluid into the vessel along the flow path (Pages 14-15) and to increase a pressure within the vessel (outer housing of 240; Figures 6-7) to drive the fluid out of the vessel along the flow path (Pages 14-15).
Regarding claim 18, Ragnar teaches wherein the well component (XT 202; Figures 6-7) is a Christmas tree/XT (202).
Regarding claim 19, Ragnar teaches a third valve (4b; Figure 6) arranged along the flow path (‘X’; See annotated figure 6), the third valve (4b) positioned to regulate an inlet flow, into the flow path, from a fluid source (fluid coming from the annulus of the well 8).
Regarding claim 20, Ragnar teaches wherein the fluid is a gas, liquid, solid, or a combination thereof (Pages 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 Ragnar in view of Ploeger et al. (US 20170045290; hereinafter “Ploeger”).
Regarding claim 6, Ragnar teaches using MEG (monoethylene glycol) to flush/wash the XT. Ragnar does not expressly teach the fluid being carbon dioxide.
However, Ploeger teaches it is known in the art to use carbon dioxide for purposes of flushing/washing the system ([0237]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ploeger’s carbon dioxide to wash/flush Ragnar’s system since carbon dioxide is a non-flammable gas compared to Ragnar MEG (monoethylene glycol) which is flammable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragnar in view of Williams (WO 2006/062512).
Regarding claim 8, Ragnar teaches the testing unit (212 and 224) is fluidly coupled (the testing unit 212 and 224 is fluidly coupled to the XT 202 through the use of associated pipes; See Figures 6-7) to XT (202).
However, Rangar does not teach wherein the testing unit is connected to the XT via a hot stab.
However, Williams teaches it is known in the art for a XT (16) being connected to a unit (66) through the use of a hot stab connection (82 and 78; See Figures 1-2; Page 6, Lines 20-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Williams’ hot stab connection implemented in the connection of the testing unit and XT of Ragnar in order to create a removable connection between the XT and the testing unit so that in the event that testing unit is damaged, it is easily disconnected from the XT.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragnar in view of Brookes et al. (US 2022/0178247; hereinafter “Brookes”).
Regarding claim 13, Ragnar teaches the amount of fluid removed from the XT which is associated with the one or more barriers and differential pressure measurement but does not expressly teach determining the quantity of fluid based, at least in part, on a differential pressure.
However, Brookes teaches that is known in the art to determine the quantity of fluid based (claim 11), at least in part, on a differential pressure (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Brookes’ determination of quantity of fluid based on Ragnar’s differential pressure in order to determine how much fluid is present in the system at the time of isolation pressure testing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855