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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 September 2024 and 15 January 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Figs. 4 and 7A, the text matter should be removed from the drawing. Text matter should only be used when necessary for understanding the drawing. For example, a reference character could be used to identify the “new legs” as shown in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of paragraph 0005, the terms “Plug” and “Abandon” should not be capitalized.
In line 4 of paragraph 0023, “Production Deck Module” should be changed to “production deck module”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 1, “the” should be inserted before “new equipment and upgrades”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 5, 9, 10, and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the steps of “identifying existing wells on an existing offshore wellhead platform that are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period; determining that an existing platform structure of the existing offshore wellhead platform is unable to accommodate additional loads from new equipment and upgrades when at least 50% of the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform are capable to produce hydrocarbons for the specified time period; determining that the existing platform structure is unable to accommodate addition of two piles to support the additional loads from new equipment and upgrades; determining that the existing wells will handle horizontal loads when the existing platform structure is removed” which are all steps involving mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of “performing a slipover platform upgrade to the existing offshore wellhead platform when the existing wells will handle horizontal loads” does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it merely represents instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the steps of “identifying existing wells on an existing offshore wellhead platform that are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period; determining that half or more of the existing wells are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period” which are both steps involving mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps associated with “performing a slipover platform upgrade to the existing offshore wellhead platform” are contingent upon “when a construction risk for performing the slipover platform upgrade is less than a threshold risk”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 15 are directed to a method for upgrading an offshore wellhead platform (i.e, a process). Therefore, claims 1 and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong 2 of the step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As notes in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
In claim 1, the additional limitation beyond the above-noted abstract idea is: “performing a slipover platform upgrade to the existing offshore wellhead platform when the existing wells will handle horizontal loads”. For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The step of “performing a slipover platform upgrade to the existing offshore wellhead platform when the existing wells will handle horizontal loads” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose offshore wellhead platform environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are: “performing a slipover platform upgrade when a construction risk for performing the slipover platform upgrade is less than a threshold risk, wherein performing the slipover upgrade comprises: demolishing the existing offshore wellhead platform while maintaining the existing wells in place; removing an offshore wellhead platform structure; installing a slipover platform structure; and installing a new production deck module on the slipover platform structure”. Examiner takes the position that the use of the term “when” as recited in line 7 of claim 15 indicates that the steps associated with “performing a slipover platform upgrade” are not required. Therefore, the additional limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of performing a slipover platform upgrade amounts to nothing more than applying the exception in a generic offshore wellhead platform environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 5, 9, 10, and 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the term “when” as recited in lines 6, 10, and 13 render the claim(s) vague and indefinite because “when” indicates that the respective limitations are not required. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s). Claims 9 and 15 contain similar errors. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear whether the “horizontal load” as recited in line 2 refers to one of the “horizontal loads” as recited in line 13 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “safe distances” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “safe” is a subjective term that does not define a specific set of distances.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wells" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to the “existing wells” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, to the “new wells” as recited in claim 9, or to each of the existing wells and the new wells.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the space" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuppalli (US 10,472,791) teaches installation of a slip-over platform for use when offshore platforms need to be decommissioned (col. 1, lines 18 - 34).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
3/30/2026
Prosecution Insights