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 2/3/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-3, 5-8, 13, 14, 16, and 18-27 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) 1-3, 6-8, 14, 16, 18-23, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over June et al. (US 20110247799) in view of Davies (US 6676076).
CLAIM 1: June discloses a system. The system comprises a landing system configured to land a retrievable module on a subsea structure (“soft landing system” 48) disposed directly in a body of water. The landing system comprising at least one landing post (60) comprising a first compressible portion configured to compress during a first compression stage (compressing of hydraulic fluid.
June fails to disclose a second compressible portion configured to compress during a second compression stage following the first compression stage, a central shaft configured to axially protrude from a bottom surface of an inner sleeve of the at least one landing post, wherein the first compressible portion and the second compressible portion are configured to adjust a distance spanning between a bottom surface of the at least one landing post and bottom surface of the retrievable module, wherein the first compressible portion and the second compressible portion are coaxial along an axial direction of the at least one landing post.
Davies discloses a shock absorber.
Davies discloses a first compressible portion (chamber 32) and a second compressible portion (chamber 47) configured to compress during a second compression stage following the first compression stage (see Figs. 3-5), a central shaft (piston 16) extends axially from a bottom surface. The first compressible portion and the second compressible portion are configured to adjust a distance spanning between a bottom surface of the at least one element and bottom surface of a different element (see Figs. 3-5), wherein the first compressible portion and the second compressible portion are coaxial along an axial direction of the at least one element (see Figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the soft landing system of June to have the chambers of Davies with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known technique of dampening forces when an object is “landed” in a similar way as both references want to minimize damage to the object being placed and Davies teaches the multiple chambers dampen the load.
CLAIM 2: Davies discloses the first compressible portion has a first stiffness and the second compressible portion has a second stiffness, wherein the first stiffness is different than the second stiffness (varying the stiffness though the use of the meter pin).
CLAIM 3: The first compressible portion and the second compressible portion comprise a fluid compensator (fluid chambers of Davies).
CLAIM 6: The combination fails to disclose wherein the at least one landing post comprises a plurality of landing posts configured to couple to and protrude downwardly from the retrievable module, each of the plurality of landing posts having the first and second compressible portions configured to compress in the respective first and second compression stages, and the plurality of landing posts are independently adjustable.
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 system to have a plurality of landing posts as the duplication of parts in which each landing post would serve the same function of enabling a soft landing and the number would be chosen based on the size of the object to be landed.
CLAIM 7: Each of the plurality of landing posts comprises a landing adjuster configured to adjust the distance to stabilize the landing of different masses, centers of gravity, or a combination thereof, of the retrievable module (June teaches a valve 68 that adjusts the amount of hydraulic fluid, which would adjust the distance to stabilize).
CLAIM 8: The landing adjuster is configured to extend the distance to compensate for a compression of the first compressible portion (see Davies, Figs. 3-5).
CLAIM 14: The retrievable module including one or more of a valve, a pump, a compressor, a flowmeter, a sensor, a chemical injection system, a fluid intervention system, a subsea sampling system, a tree conversion system, a high-integrity pressure protection system, a fluid conduit, a fluid tank, an accumulator, an actuator, a choke, a controller (June teaches a tubing hanger tool, which includes actuators and conduits).
CLAIM 16: June discloses a system. The system comprises a retrievable module (THRT 30). The remainder of this claim is addressed in claim 1 above.
CLAIM 18: See claim 3 above.
CLAIM 19: See claim 15 above.
CLAIM 20: This method is inherent to the structures above.
CLAIM 21: The first compressible portion comprises a soft-landing compressible portion being less stiff than a load-bearing compressible portion of the second compressible portion, the soft-landing compressible portion is configured to compress during the first compression stage in response to an initial contact of the bottom surface of the at least one landing post on an upward facing landing surface of the subsea structure, and the load-bearing compressible portion is configured to compress during the second compression stage until the landing system bears a load of the retrievable module (see June, discussion of “soft landing”, the relative stiffnesses being discussed above).
CLAIM 22: The soft-landing compressible portion comprises a soft-landing piston configured to act against a fluid during the first compression stage (see June, paragraph 0029).
CLAIM 23: June fails to disclose the soft-landing piston is configured to discharge the fluid comprising water into a surrounding water in a subsea environment during the first compression stage.
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 system to discharge the fluid outside the system as a rearrangement of parts to change how the fluid exits the system.
CLAIM 25: Davies discloses an inner sleeve and outer sleeve (see Fig. 3). The sleeves are configured to move over distances in the compression stages as described.
CLAIM 26: It would be obvious for the at least one landing post comprises four landing posts, each of the four landing posts having the first and second compressible portions (see claim 6 above).
June-Davies fails to disclose each of the landing posts having an inner extension nut coupled to a first distal end of the axial core portion, and each of the landing posts having an outer extension nut coupled to a second distal end of the inner sleeve.
Examiner takes official notice that nuts are well known in the art as a means of fine adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the system of June-Davies to include nuts with a reasonable expectation of success as a means of adding fine adjustments to the system to allow small adjustments to the system.
CLAIM 27: Davies discloses an outer sleeve (14), an inner sleeve (13) slidably connected to the outer sleeve, and the central shaft (16) slidably connected to the inner sleeve. The central shaft is configured to move relative to the outer sleeve over a first distance and the central shaft and the inner sleeve are configured to move together relative to the outer sleeve over a second distance different than the first distance (see Figs. 3-5).
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over June in view of Davies in further view of Mathis (US 20210140279).
CLAIM 5: The first compressible portion comprises a fluid damper (Davies).
June-Davies fails to disclose the second compressible portion comprises a spring.
Mathis discloses a landing system for subsea equipment.
Mathis discloses a compressible portion that is a spring (hydraulic cylinders 3B as spring, see paragraph 0042).
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 system of June-Davies to substitute in the springs of Mathis with a reasonable expectation of success as the substitution of one known compression means for another in which the springs would perform the same function of dampening the load.
CLAIM 13: June-Davies discloses the elements of claim 8 as discussed above.
June-Davies fails to disclose wherein the landing adjuster is threadedly coupled to the at least one landing post.
Mathis discloses threaded landing adjusters (jack screws; paragraph 0042).
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 system of June-Davies to include the threaded connections of Mathis with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known connection means to make sure the adjusters are properly secured to the overall system.
CLAIM 24: Mathis discloses wherein the load-bearing compressible portion comprises a spring (see claim 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 2/3/26 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 newly cited art shows the amended language about the central shaft more clearly.
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