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 3/2/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-15 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem et al. (US 20170159377) in view of Amezaga (US 20230053471).
CLAIM 1: Salem discloses a hang-off system for measuring a top tension in a flexible pipe, said flexible pipe comprising a flexible pipe body and a top end-fitting arranged at an end of the flexible pipe body, the hang-off system being configured to maintain the top end-fitting on a surface assembly, the hang-off system (this preamble does not limit the scope of claim as the rest of the claim completely describes the claimed invention’s structure, see MPEP 2111.02). The system comprising an annular collar (38) extending along a first axis (A1) (see Fig. 1A), the annular collar being configured to be arranged around the top end-fitting (see Fig. 1B), the annular collar being formed by at least two parts assembled to each other (bodies 12 hinged together), each part comprising a top plate (20) and a bottom plate (see Fig. 1A) assembled to each other, said top plate and bottom plate delimiting an intermediate space between them (see Figs. 1A, 1B, 4).
Salem fails to disclose at least one part comprising at least one load cell arranged in the intermediate space and sandwiched between the top plate and the bottom plate, the bottom plate being configured to be assembled on the surface assembly, a data acquisition system connected to the load cell.
Amezaga discloses a spider for handling well components.
Amezaga discloses a spider (14) for holding a pipe (12). The spider includes load cells for monitoring the weight (paragraph 0069) placed between the upper and lower plats of the spider (paragraph 0068 placing sensors in the interior). The load cells are attached to a data acquisition system (paragraph 0069).
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 Salem to include the load cells of Amezaga with a reasonable expectation of success as Amezaga teaches the weight will help the system know the position of the tubular (see paragraphs 0070-71).
CLAIM 2: Each part comprises at least one load cell, the load cells of the hang-off system being regularly spaced around the first axis (see Amezaga, Fig. 2 showing sensor placement options around the axis of the pipe).
CLAIM 3: The top plate mainly extends in a first plane and the bottom plate mainly extends in a second plane substantially parallel to the first plane and perpendicular to the first axis (see Salem, Fig. 4).
CLAIM 4: The annular collar is formed by exactly two parts or exactly three parts assembled to each other (see Fig. 1B showing two part).
CLAIM 5: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of parts of the collar to be three as a mere duplication of parts in which the three parts would function in the same manner as the disclosed two parts by surrounding the pipe.
CLAIM 6: Each part comprises a plurality of fasteners and locknuts for assembling the top plate to the bottom plate, each fastener extending along an axis substantially parallel to the first axis (A1) (such as locking pins).
CLAIM 7: The top plate and/or the bottom plate define a convex surface protruding towards the intermediate space, said convex surface being in contact with the load cell (see Salem, Fig. 4 showing convex portion in bottom plate; one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to place the load cell in contact with the plate to achieve proper measurement).
CLAIM 8: Each bottom plate and each top plate of each part of the annular collar extends respectively along a circular arc in a plane substantially perpendicular to the first axis (A1) between a first end and a second end, each first end and second end comprising at least an assembling portion, the at least two parts of the annular collar being assembled to each other by said assembling portions (see Salem, Figs. 1A, 1B).
CLAIM 9: At least one part of the annular collar comprises at least one shim arranged between the bottom plate and the load cell (see Salem, Fig. 4, stopper 40 would reasonably act as a shim).
CLAIM 10: Each part of the annular collar comprises at least a first reinforcement element protruding from the top plate towards the intermediate space, and a second reinforcement element protruding from the bottom plate towards the intermediate space, the first reinforcement element being arranged facing the second reinforcement element along a direction substantially parallel to the first axis (A1) (see Salem, Fig. 4 showing interior protrusions).
Salem fails to disclose the first reinforcement element and the second reinforcement element being separated by a gap comprised between 5 mm and 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed gap as a mere optimization of values defined by the size of the general collar.
CLAIM 11: Salem teaches a flexible pipe (18) with a top end-fitting (see Fig. 1B) and a surface assembly (see Fig. 10A).
CLAIM 12: This method is inherent to the above structure.
CLAIMS 13-15: One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find these methods steps to be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success. The location of the preparation and assembling steps would not change the overall function of the system, but would be done by engineering choice as to where each step is easier to be accomplished. Acceptance tests are basic steps of any project to ensure safety and suitability for the desired goal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Amezaga is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Amezaga is both. Both the claimed invention and Amezaga are related to handling tubulars in drilling systems. In fact, both are listed in subsections under the CPC symbol E21B19/00. Further, Amezaga is pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned – measuring forces applied to components in a system. Therefore, Amezaga is analogous art.
Applicant further asserts that Azemaga fails to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Salem. As discussed above, Azemaga teaches to monitor the forces applied to cylinders in such a system. This is a direct teaching and motivation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Azemaga teaches that the load can be used to assist the control system to assure proper operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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