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 3/17/25 are acknowledged; claims 1-20 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 and 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strand (US 20030029620) in view of Young et al. (US 6463801).
CLAIM 1: Strand discloses a suction anchor. The anchor comprises a suction chamber (2) bounded by: (i) a circumferential outer wall (4), (ii) an upper wall (6) having a central opening (12), and (iii) a wall of an internal housing (20). The internal housing defining a passage in communication with the central opening for receiving wellhead components that may be secured to the suction anchor (see Fig. 2). The suction chamber having a minor upper portion and a major lower portion, the minor upper portion comprising internal reinforcing members (18’) extending along the inside of the upper wall from the outer walls to the internal housing; wherein the internal reinforcing members are located only in the minor upper portion and do not extend into the major lower portion (see Fig. 2, 4); and the major portion being adapted to be embedded in a seabed and the minor portion being adapted to project from the seabed when the anchor is installed (see Fig. 3, 4 showing parts of the 18’ in contact with seabed 24). The internal reinforcing members are arranged to lie on top of the sea bed when the suction anchor is fully installed (see Fig. 4). Wherein the internal reinforcing members serve both to reinforce the upper wall of the chamber against collapse and to rigidly support the internal housing such that it may resist forces applied to it arising from bending moments applied to a wellhead component received and secured therein (see paragraph 0041).
Strand fails to disclose the minor upper portion is smaller than the major lower portion or a bottom surface of each of the internal reinforcing members lies directly on an upper surface of the seabed when the suction anchor is fully installed.
Young discloses a suction anchor for seabed unit.
Young discloses a caisson suction anchor (102) with a chamber (104) that is separated into a minor portion comprising internal reinforcements (122) that is smaller than the a major portion that extends further into the seabed (Fig. 3). The reinforcing members lie directly on the seabed (60) (Fig. 3, col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Strand to have the internal supports of Young with a reasonable expectation of success as Strand teaches that the arrangement can support the load and limit bowing forces applied to what the anchor supports (col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 8).
CLAIM 3: The internal housing is a conductor housing receptacle adapted to receive a conductor housing (receiving conductor casing string 14).
CLAIM 4: The conductor housing receptacle further comprises a conductor housing located therein and rigidly secured thereto, the conductor housing being adapted to receive a wellhead component (funnel receiving casing string).
CLAIM 5: The conductor housing is clamped into the conductor housing receptacle (see paragraph 0040).
CLAIM 6: The internal reinforcing members extend radially from the wall of the internal housing to the outer wall (see Fig. 2).
The prior art fails to disclose I-Beams.
Examiner takes official notice that I-Beams are well known in the art as structural members.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the reinforcing members of the Strand-Bang combination to be I-Beams as described in the claims as a substitution of one structural member for another as Bang teaches that the frame members must be strong enough to allow the frame to be moved (paragraph 0023).
CLAIM 7: A central pipe depending from the internal housing and serving to bound the inner part of the major portion of the suction chamber (see Fig. 2).
CLAIM 8: The central pipe is adapted to receive a well casing depending from a wellhead secured in the internal housing (see paragraph 0041)
CLAIM 9: A suction port (34) enables air and/or water to be pumped from the suction chamber.
CLAIM 10: A plurality of attachment points (16) are provided at the upper wall.
CLAIM 11: The outer wall is cylindrical and/or the upper wall is substantially planar (see Strand, Fig. 2).
Young teaches the bottoms of the reinforcing members are parallel with the upper wall (see Young, Fig. 3).
CLAIM 12: A wellhead housing and a wellhead casing, wherein the wellhead housing is rigidly secured within a conductor housing and the conductor housing is rigidly secured within the internal housing, whereby lateral forces applied to the upper part of the wellhead casing are transmitted to the suction anchor (see paragraph 0031; claims 1 and 2).
CLAIM 13: A wellhead valve is mounted above the wellhead housing (see claims 1, 2).
CLAIM 14: The suction anchor is installed in a seabed with the major portion beneath the seabed and the minor portion projecting therefrom (see Fig. 4).
CLAIMS 15-19: These methods are inherent to the above structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 3/17/25 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.
With respect to the double patenting, the pending claims 2 and 20 now have the limitation regarding “directly”. This is not claimed in the previous invention, and thus no longer is double patenting.
With respect to the relative size of the major and minor portions, neither the previous rejection nor the pending rejection relies on Strand to teach the minor portion being smaller than the major portion. The relative sizing is identified as a difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2141(II). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “smaller” and “larger” terms are adjectives that describe the minor and major portions. One of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, would consider the prior art and determine if the differences of size would be obvious or not. As the prior art teaches the major and minor portions can be different sizes, the claimed invention is obvious.
The newly cited art shows the limitations of the arrangement of the interior reinforcements.
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 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights