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
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 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 15, the phrase “construction risk” as recited in line 7 is confusing because the claim does not clearly define a specific risk (i.e. risk of wellbore collapse, risk of damage to the slipover platform). Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “threshold risk” as recited in line 8 is confusing because the claim does not clearly define a specific risk (i.e. the maximum weight the slipover platform can carry without collapsing). Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim(s).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 15 - 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuppalli (US 10,472,791) in view of Pogonowski (US 3,572,044).
Regarding claim 1, Kuppalli discloses a method for upgrading an offshore wellhead platform, the method comprising: performing a slipover platform upgrade to the existing offshore wellhead platform (100), wherein performing the slipover platform upgrade comprises: demolishing the existing offshore wellhead platform (the demolishing involves dismantling the existing offshore wellhead platform using heavy lifts, cutting, un-bolting, or other removal steps; col. 4, lines 23 - 40) while maintaining the existing structures (piles 312) in place; removing the existing platform structure; installing a new slipover platform structure (col. 5, lines 56 - 67); and installing a new production deck module (top deck 102) on the new slipover platform structure (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 1, lines 26 - 40; col. 4, lines 12 - 40; col. 5, lines 16 - 23 and lines 56 - 67). Kuppalli teaches the offshore platform can include processing equipment for oil and gas production and pipeline infrastructure (col. 4, lines 19 - 22) which can obviously be connected to existing wells. Kuppalli fails to disclose existing wells; identifying existing wells on an existing offshore wellhead platform that are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period; determining that 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 an existing platform structure of the existing offshore wellhead platform is unable to accommodate additional loads from new equipment and upgrades; determining that the existing platform structure is unable to accommodate addition of two piles to support the additional loads from the new equipment and upgrades; and determining that the existing wells will handle horizontal loads upon removal of the existing platform structure. Pogonowski teaches an offshore wellhead platform (jacket J) is separated from pilings (25) and wellheads (wellhead structure S) (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 2, lines 47 - 51; col. 4, lines 33 - 39; col. 5, lines 48 - 58) so that the offshore wellhead platform can be removed for use at another site. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the offshore wellhead platform comprising separable pilings as disclosed by Kuppalli with the separable wellheads as taught by Pogonowski to allow the offshore wellhead platform to be removed so that the pilings and wellheads do not pose a navigation risk to passing vessels or obstruction to the installation of the new slip-over platform. Pogonowski fails to teach identifying existing wells on an existing offshore wellhead platform that are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period; determining that 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 an existing platform structure of the existing offshore wellhead platform is unable to accommodate additional loads from new equipment and upgrades; determining that the existing platform structure is unable to accommodate addition of two piles to support the additional loads from the new equipment and upgrades; and determining that the existing wells will handle horizontal loads upon removal of the existing platform structure. Given the method as disclosed above, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use mental judgments to perform 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 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 an existing platform structure of the existing offshore wellhead platform is unable to accommodate additional loads from new equipment and upgrades; determining that the existing platform structure is unable to accommodate addition of two piles to support the additional loads from the new equipment and upgrades; and determining that the existing wells will handle horizontal loads upon removal of the existing platform structure in order to optimize oil and gas production at the offshore wellhead platform.
Regarding claim 2, Kuppalli in view of Pogonowski fails to disclose determining the ability of the existing wells to handle the horizontal loads comprises determining the ability of the existing wells to handle the horizontal loads using clamps to strengthen the existing wells. Examiner takes the position that the aforementioned limitations represent mental judgments and it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the mental steps of determining the ability of the existing wells to handle the horizontal loads comprises determining the ability of the existing wells to handle the horizontal loads using clamps to strengthen the existing wells to optimize oil and gas production at the offshore wellhead platform.
Regarding claim 4, Kuppalli fails to disclose installing new piles to support the slipover platform. Kuppalli teaches an offshore wellhead platform (100) supported on piles (312) (Figs. 1A and 1B); and removing the offshore wellhead platform and installing a new slip-over platform (col. 1, lines 26 - 40; col. 4, lines 12 - 40; col. 5, lines 16 - 23 and lines 56 - 67). Since the offshore wellhead platform as disclosed by Kuppalli is supported on piles, the installation of a new slip-over platform would obviously include the step of installing new piles to support the new slip-over platform.
Regarding claim 5, Kuppalli fails to explicitly teach installing the new piles in a same direction as the existing piles to avoid clashing between the new piles and the existing piles. Given the method and the offshore wellhead platform as disclosed above, the method of claim 5 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Kuppalli fails to disclose drilling new wells and constructing a new platform structure at a new location. Pogonowski teaches constructing a new platform structure at a new location (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 2, lines 47 - 51; col. 4, lines 33 - 39; col. 5, lines 48 - 58). Pogonowski teaches separating the jacket J for reuse at another well site and Examiner takes the position that in order for the jacket to be used at another wellsite, a new platform structure will obviously need constructed by attaching the jacket J to pilings and a new wellhead structure W at the new well site.
Regarding claim 10, Kuppalli further discloses removing the existing offshore wellhead platform (100) to free space for future development or undergo a de- commissioning phase (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 1, lines 26 - 40; col. 4, lines 12 - 40; col. 5, lines 16 - 23 and lines 56 - 67). . Kuppalli fails to disclose fails to disclose plugging and abandoning the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform. Pogonowski teaches plugging (capping) and abandoning the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform (col. 5, lines 48 - 58). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of plugging and abandoning the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform as taught by Pogonowski to prevent material from flowing into or out of the wellhead that is no longer in use.
Regarding claim 15, Kuppalli discloses a method for upgrading an offshore wellhead platform, the method comprising: performing a slipover platform upgrade to the existing offshore wellhead platform (100), wherein performing the slipover platform upgrade comprises: demolishing the existing offshore wellhead platform (the demolishing involves dismantling the existing offshore wellhead platform using heavy lifts, cutting, un-bolting, or other removal steps; col. 4, lines 23 - 40) while maintaining the existing structures (piles 312) in place; removing the existing platform structure; installing a new slipover platform structure (col. 5, lines 56 - 67); and installing a new production deck module (top deck 102) on the new slipover platform structure (Figs. 1A and 1B; col. 1, lines 26 - 40; col. 4, lines 12 - 40; col. 5, lines 16 - 23 and lines 56 - 67). Kuppalli teaches the offshore platform can include processing equipment for oil and gas production and pipeline infrastructure (col. 4, lines 19 - 22) which can obviously be connected to existing wells. Kuppalli fails to disclose existing wells; identifying existing wells on an existing offshore wellhead platform that are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period; determining that half of the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform are capable to produce hydrocarbons for the specified time period; and determining that a construction risk for performing the slipover platform upgrade is less than a threshold risk. Pogonowski teaches an offshore wellhead platform (jacket J) is separated from pilings (25) and wellheads (wellhead structure S) (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 2, lines 47 - 51; col. 4, lines 33 - 39; col. 5, lines 48 - 58) so that the offshore wellhead platform can be removed for use at another site. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the offshore wellhead platform comprising separable pilings as disclosed by Kuppalli with the separable wellheads as taught by Pogonowski to allow the offshore wellhead platform to be removed so that the pilings and wellheads do not pose a navigation risk to passing vessels or obstruction to the installation of the new slip-over platform. Pogonowski fails to teach identifying existing wells on an existing offshore wellhead platform that are capable to produce hydrocarbons for a specified time period; determining that half of the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform are capable to produce hydrocarbons for the specified time period; and determining that a construction risk for performing the slipover platform upgrade is less than a threshold risk. Given the method as disclosed above, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use mental judgments to perform 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 of the existing wells on the existing offshore wellhead platform are capable to produce hydrocarbons for the specified time period; and determining that a construction risk for performing the slipover platform upgrade is less than a threshold risk in order to optimize oil and gas production at the offshore wellhead platform.
Regarding claim 16, Kuppalli fails to disclose installing isolation plugs in the existing wells prior to performing the slipover platform upgrade. Pogonowski teaches installing isolation plugs (caps) in the existing wells during the removal of the offshore wellhead platform (col. 5, lines 48 - 58). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of installing isolation plugs in the existing wells as taught by Pogonowski to prevent material from flowing into or out of the wellhead that is no longer in use. Pogonowski fails to disclose the installation of the isolation plugs occurs prior to performing the slipover platform upgrade. Since the existing wells as taught by Pogonowski are plugged during the removal of the offshore wellhead platform, the installation of isolation plugs would obviously occur before performing the slipover platform upgrade.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Kuppalli fails to disclose drilling additional wells to increase production of hydrocarbons. Pogonowski teaches constructing a new platform structure at a new well site (Figs. 1 - 3; abstract; col. 2, lines 47 - 51; col. 4, lines 33 - 39; col. 5, lines 48 - 58) to produce additional hydrocarbons. Pogonowski teaches separating the jacket J for reuse at another well site and Examiner takes the position that in order for the jacket to be used at another wellsite, a new platform structure will obviously need constructed by attaching the jacket J to pilings and a new wellhead structure W at the new well site. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of drilling an additional well as taught by Pogonowski to produce additional hydrocarbons, thereby providing additional economic benefit. Pogonowski fails to teach installing a plurality of additional wells. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have installed a plurality of additional wells, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Given the method as disclosed above, the method of claim 20 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 15 - 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 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
7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights