DETAILED ACTION
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 response of 04 June 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. New grounds of rejection are provided. The remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The submission of the replacement drawing sheet for figure 1 is acknowledged. In view thereof, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0107770 A1 (Harbison et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Harbison et al. discloses a frame for use in a subsea environment, the frame comprising: a hollow body 52 configured to receive a plurality of service lines (figure 3), wherein the hollow body is made up of two or more parts made of a polymer (see, 0027, “interface unit 52 and restrictor 54 are formed from two generally semi-circular segmented parts”). ; the frame configured for attachment to a flying lead (50 is equivalent, which may be the end termination of a flexible pipe, a cable or an umbilical, see 0030), which may enclosing the plurality of service lines to protect the plurality of service lines from external loads at connection points between the flying lead 50 and a component 54 of a subsea installation.
As concerns claim 3, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame is a carrier frame (in as much as it provides a channel 100 that “carries” the tubular component, see figure 3).
As concerns claim 4, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame comprises a first part and a second part (0027).
As concerns claim 5, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first part is configured to be joined to the second part to form a hollow body which surrounds and protects a length of the service lines (as shown in figure 3, apertures at 85 illustrate the plane where the segments of the frame 52 are joined).
As concerns claim 6, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first part comprises a first section and a second section, wherein the first section and the second part are each substantially semi-circular in cross section and are configured to form a substantially cylindrical hollow body when joined together (0027 and figure 3).
As concerns claim 8, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame is configured to receive a connector for connecting the plurality of service lines to a subsea installation (end terminal 50 is considered equivalent here).
As concerns claim 11, Harbison et al. discloses a service line connection system for use in a subsea environment and comprising: a plurality of service lines (as the cable may be a pipe, power cable or umbilical); a subsea installation (implicit, as the device is for use subsea, see 0004 et seq.); a connector (termination 50 is equivalent) connected to the plurality of service lines and configured to connect the plurality of service lines to the subsea installation (figure 3); and the frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of service lines extend through the frame (Id.).
As concerns claim 12, Harbison et al. discloses the service line connection system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the connector is received in the frame (figure 3 and figure 4).
As concerns claim 13, Harbison et al. discloses the service line connection system as claimed in claim 11, further comprising a tubing surrounding the plurality of service lines (this would be the case if the tubing was an umbilical or a power cable).
As concerns claim 15, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hollow body is configured for sealed engagement with the flying lead (note the recesses and protrusions at 58 and 60 in figure 3).
As concerns claim 16, Harbison et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 1, therein a transverse cross-section of the frame is ellipsoidal (A cross-section view is not shown in the figures, but it certainly appears that a cross-section would have an ellipsoidal or circular cross-section).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/030447 A1 (Smith et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Smith et al. discloses a frame for use in a subsea environment, the frame comprising: a hollow body 105 configured to receive a plurality of service lines (umbilical or service line, see, 0015), wherein the hollow body is made up of two or more parts made of a polymer (0017-0018); the frame configured for attachment to a flying lead (102 is equivalent, as the termination attaches to a rig or rig structure, see, 0015) enclosing the plurality of service lines to protect the plurality of service lines from external loads at connection points between the flying lead and a component of a subsea installation.
As concerns claim 4, Smith et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame comprises a first part and a second part (split halves as shown, figure 2A-2C, joined with fasteners 112, see 0017).
As concerns claim 7, Smith et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 4, wherein each of the first section and the second part comprise a first flange and a second diametrically opposite flange extending radially outwardly therefrom, and wherein the first and second flanges of the first section are configured to abut against the first and second flanges of the second part when the frame is assembled (the structure at 108 and the shoulder at 110 are reasonably construed as "flange structures" and will abut, see figure 2A and 2B).
As concerns claim 9, Smith et al. discloses the frame as claimed in claim 8, wherein the frame forms a cap for receiving an end of the connector (in as much as the frame extends over and around a first end of the connector 102, the illustrated structure in figure 3 is equivalent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbison et al., or Smith et al. in view of International Publication Number WO 2017/161185 A1 (Ramasubramanian).
As concerns claim 10, Harbison et al. and Smith et al. disclose the frame as claimed in claim 1, but lack to disclose wherein one or more openings are provided in the frame to allow water to flow into the frame when assembled.
Ramasubramanian discloses a frame for use in a subsea environment, wherein one or more openings are provided in the frame to allow water to flow into the frame when assembled (see figure 3A, showing openings in frame 328 to allow for the passage of water, see 0098, which may provide pressure balancing for the interior chamber).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have incorporated the openings in the frame as described with a reasonable expectation of success, as this would provide the desirable result of equalizing the pressure for the service lines passing through the frame.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al., or Harbison et al., and further in view of US 9,216,524 B1 (Cook et al.).
As concerns claims 2 and14, Smith et al. and Harbison et al. disclose the method of producing [[a ]]the frame as claimed in claim 1 for use in a subsea environment, the frame comprising: a hollow body configured to receive a plurality of service lines (see Harbison et al., figure 3, Smith et al., at 0015), wherein the hollow body is made up of two or more parts made of a polymer (Harbison et al. at 0027, Smith et al. at 0017-0018), but lacks to expressly disclose the method comprising forming the two or more parts of the hollow body by additive manufacturing.
Nevertheless, the step would be readily ascertainable from the disclosure of Cook et al., as the reference discloses a subsea construction and a manufacturing method for subsea structures made of a polymer (see at least the Abstract) to lend buoyancy and/or thermal insulation to equipment and structures to reduce load and/or minimize heat loss wherein the products are made by an additive manufacturing process (Id.). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would have obviously considered utilizing the additive manufacturing process of Cook et al. to produce the frame of Smith et al., or Harbison et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as the process produces structures with optimum strength, buoyancy and insulative value that is very useful in high pressure high force applications (such as are found in subsea and offshore operations) (see 2:5-14).
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 JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights