DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
In the reply filed September 15, 2025, the applicant amended claims 1, 6, and 11.
Currently claims 1-18 are under examination.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinho Dos Reis (U.S. Patent No. 11,613,934).
Regarding Claim 1, Pinho Dos Reis discloses a retrievable guide funnel, comprising:
An upper guide portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 11), comprising:
A first upper funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: conical portion of 11),
A hub clamp portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 3, 13), comprising:
A frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) connected to the upper guide portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 11), the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) having a cavity (Pinho Dos Reis: interior of 3) for accepting an externally operable hub clamp (Pinho Dos Reis: 30) for connecting a fluid transmission pipe therein (Pinho Dos Reis: 1); and
A lower guide portion (Pinho Dos Reis: A) connected to the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) of the hub clamp portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 3, 13), comprising:
A lower funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: A), wherein the first upper funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: conical portion of 11) and the lower funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: A) are oriented with a narrow portion of the funnel closer to the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) and a wide portion of the funnel more distal from the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13), and wherein the retrievable guide funnel is used to facilitate a pressure tight connection at the seafloor retrievable independent of a subsea structure.
Regarding Claim 6, Pinho Dos Reis discloses a subsea pipe connection system using a retrievable guide funnel, comprising:
A vertical pipe arrangement (Pinho Dos Reis: 12), and
A retrievable guide funnel connected to the vertical pipe arrangement (Pinho Dos Reis: 12), the retrievable guide funnel comprising:
An upper guide portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 11), comprising:
A first upper funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: conical portion of 11),
A hub clamp portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 3, 13), comprising:
A frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) connected to the upper guide portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 11), the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) having a cavity (Pinho Dos Reis: interior of 3) for accepting an externally operable hub clamp (Pinho Dos Reis: 30) for connecting a fluid transmission pipe therein (Pinho Dos Reis: 1), wherein the hub clamp is operable by ROV to facilitate a pressure connection (Pino Dos Reis: Column 6: lines 8-14); and
A lower guide portion (Pinho Dos Reis: A) connected to the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) of the hub clamp portion (Pinho Dos Reis: 3, 13), comprising:
A lower funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: A),wherein the first upper funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: conical portion of 11) and the lower funnel (Pinho Dos Reis: A) are oriented with a narrow portion of the funnel closer to the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13) and a wide portion of the funnel more distal from the frame (Pinho Dos Reis: 13), and wherein the retrievable guide funnel is retrievable independent of the vertical pipe arrangement (Pinho Dos Reis: 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the applicant argues that the inclusion of language directed toward the facilitation of a pressure tight connection at the seafloor, distinguishes the applicant’s invention from the invention of Pinho Dos Reis.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the facilitation of a pressure tight connection, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 and 18 are allowed.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 16, and 17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The use of language directed toward the direction of the jumper pipe/cap being lowered into the top of the upper guide portion of the retrievable funnel is not taught by Pino Dos Reis, and would not be obvious to add this feature. Therefore when combined with the other limitations of claim 11, this limitation is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s invention from prior art.
The use of language directed toward the placement and function of a second upper funnel, when combined with the other limitations of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and any intervening claims, is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s invention from prior art.
The use of language directed toward the additional components and function of the lower guide portion, when combined with the other limitations of claims 3, 8, 16, and 17 and any intervening claims, is sufficient to distinguish the applicant’s invention from prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM EST.
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 A 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Nicole Coy/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights