DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
Currently claims 32-62 are under examination.
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 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.
Claims 32-34, 37-43, 46-49, 52-55, and 58-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endal (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0123937) in view of Hovde (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0263542).
Regarding Claim 32, Endal discloses a method of installing a steel catenary riser (Endal: 1), the method comprising:
Progressively unspooling and launching the riser (Endal: 1) into water from a reel-lay vessel (Endal: 3);
Plastically deforming (Endal: Paragraph [0023]) the riser (Endal: 1) in a straightening process aboard the vessel downstream of unspooling and upstream of launching the riser (Endal: Figure 1: straightening occurs after unspooling from 2);
Adjusting the straightening process to form at least one residual curvature loop (Endal: Paragraph [0024]) of locally increased curvature in a length of the riser (Endal: 1) that will be suspended in the water above a touch-down point (Endal: Figure 3B) in use; and
Endal does not disclose attaching one or more ballast weights to the at least one loop.
Hovde discloses attaching one or more ballast weights (Hovde: 32) to at least one loop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized the ballast system of Hovde with the riser of Endal for the predictable effect of maintaining tension of the riser while said riser is in motion due to the motion of the vessel and water relative to the contact point of the riser to equipment on the seabed as disclosed by Hovde (Hovde: Paragraphs [0019], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 33, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, comprising attaching a series of ballast weights (Hovde: Figures 1-4: series of spaced 32s) to the or each loop (Figure 1: curve continues past placed weights).
Regarding Claim 34, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 33, wherein the series of ballast weights (Hovde: Figures 1-4: series of spaced 32s) terminates short of ends of the or each loop (Figure 1: curve continues past placed weights).
Regarding Claim 37, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 33, further comprising attaching one or more buoyancy elements to the riser (Endal: 1) above a series of the loops.
Regarding Claim 38, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, further comprising attaching one or more buoyancy elements (Hovde: 24) to the riser (Endal: 1) above the or each loop.
Regarding Claim 39, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, comprising also using the straightening process to form upper and lower straighter portions of the riser (Endal: 1) respectively above and below the or each loop, those straighter portions being of lesser curvature than the or each loop (Endal and Hovde: Each loop has straightened portions before and after before continuing into an opposite curvature portions).
Regarding Claim 40, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, comprising adjusting the straightening process to form a series of two or more of the residual curvature loops (Endal: Paragraph [0024]), successive loops of the series being separated and joined by a straighter portion of the riser (Endal: 1) of lesser curvature than those loops (Endal and Hovde: Each loop has straightened portions before and after before continuing into an opposite curvature portions).
Regarding Claim 41, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 39, comprising substantially fully straightening the or each straighter portion of the riser (Endal: 1) in the straightening process (Endal: Paragraph [0033]: straight portions in between curved portions).
Regarding Claim 42, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 39, wherein in the installed riser (Endal: 1), the or each straighter portion of the riser (Endal: 1) substantially follows a catenary curve (curved portions) that extends to a touch-down point (Endal: Figure 3B) of the riser (Endal: 1).
Regarding Claim 43, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, wherein the or each loop is downwardly convex (Hovde: installed weights orient loop downwardly convex) in the installed riser (Endal: 1).
Regarding Claim 47, Endal discloses a steel catenary riser (Endal: 1) comprising a series of pre-formed portions that are plastically formed to different extents in longitudinal succession along a length of the riser (Endal: 1) suspended in water above a touch-down point (Endal: Figure 3B), those portions comprising at least one residual curvature loop (Endal: Paragraph [0024]) of locally increased curvature disposed between straighter portions of lesser curvature than the or each loop,
Endal does not disclose the riser (Endal: 1) further comprising at least one ballast weight attached to the or each loop.
Hovde discloses attaching one or more ballast weights (Hovde: 32) to at least one loop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized the ballast system of Hovde in the riser system of Endal with the predictable effect of maintaining tension of the riser while said riser is in motion due to the motion of the vessel and water relative to the contact point of the riser to equipment on the seabed as disclosed by Hovde (Hovde: Paragraphs [0019], [0041]).
Regarding Claim 48, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, wherein a series of ballast weights (Hovde: Figures 1-4: series of spaced 32s) is attached to the or each loop.
Regarding Claim 49, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 48, wherein the series of ballast weights (Hovde: Figures 1-4: series of spaced 32s) terminates short of ends of the or each loop.
Regarding Claim 52, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, further comprising one or more buoyancy elements (Hovde: 24) attached to the riser (Endal: 1) above the or each loop.
Regarding Claim 53, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, comprising a series of two or more of the residual curvature loop (Endal: Paragraph [0024])s, successive loops of the series being separated and joined by a straighter portion of the riser (Endal: 1) of lesser curvature than those loops (Endal and Hovde: Each loop has straightened portions before and after before continuing into an opposite curvature portions).
Regarding Claim 54, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 53, wherein the or each straighter portion of the riser (Endal: 1) substantially follows a catenary curve extending to a touch-down point (Endal: Figure 3B) of the riser (Endal: 1).
Regarding Claim 55, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, wherein the or each loop is downwardly convex (Hovde: installed weights orient loop downwardly convex).
Regarding Claim 58, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, comprising a touch-down portion (Hovde: 40) that extends across the touch-down point (Endal: Figure 3B), wherein the riser (Endal: 1) is stiffer along at least part of the length of the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40) than outside the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40).
Regarding Claim 59, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 58, wherein a wall of the riser (Endal: 1) is thicker along at least part of the length of the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40) than in sections of the riser (Endal: 1) outside the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40).
Regarding Claim 60, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 59, wherein the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40) comprises at least one upset-end pipe.
Regarding Claim 61, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 58, comprising at least one pipe section in the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40) that is of stiffer material than pipe sections outside the touch-down portion (Hovde: 40 is rigid).
Regarding Claim 62, Endal and Hovde render obvious a subsea installation comprising at least one riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47.
Claims 35, 36, 50, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endal in view of Hovde, further in view of Bhat 2012 (U.S. Pub. No. 20120160510).
Regarding Claim 35, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 33, but does not disclose wherein the series of ballast weights (Hovde: Figures 1-4: series of spaced 32s) extends along a majority of the or each loop.
Bhat 2012 discloses a series of ballast weights extending along a majority of each of a series of loops (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0020]: Weight distributed along half of a total wavelength results in weights occupying a majority of downward loop portion of said wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the weight distribution of Bhat 2012 in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of precisely controlling the shape of a bend in the riser as taught by Bhat 2012 (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 36, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 33, but does not disclose wherein the ballast weights (Hovde: 32) are equi-spaced from each other along the length of the series.
Bhat 2012 discloses a series of ballast weights being equi-spaced from each other along the length of the series (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0028]: ballast may be uniformly distributed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the equal weight distribution of Bhat 2012 in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of precisely controlling the shape of a bend in the riser as taught by Bhat 2012 (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 50, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 48, but does not disclose wherein the series of weights extends along a majority of the or each loop.
Bhat 2012 discloses a series of ballast weights extending along a majority of each of a series of loops (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0020]: Weight distributed along half of a total wavelength results in weights occupying a majority of downward loop portion of said wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the weight distribution of Bhat 2012 in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of precisely controlling the shape of a bend in the riser as taught by Bhat 2012 (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 51, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 48, but does not disclose wherein the weights are equi-spaced from each other along the length of the series.
Bhat 2012 discloses a series of ballast weights being equi-spaced from each other along the length of the series (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0028]: ballast may be uniformly distributed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the equal weight distribution of Bhat 2012 in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of precisely controlling the shape of a bend in the riser as taught by Bhat 2012 (Bhat 2012: Paragraph [0028]).
Claims 44 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endal in view of Hovde, further in view of de Baan (US Patent No. 6,109830).
Regarding Claim 44, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, but does not disclose wherein in the installed riser (Endal: 1), vertical clearance between the seabed and the loop or a lowermost one of the loops is less than 5% of the water depth.
De Baan discloses an installed riser (de Baan: 13)) having vertical clearance between the seabed and the loop or a lowermost one of its loops is less than 5% of the water depth (de Baan: Column 3: lined 35-43; Figure 2: articulated joint 7 can be located at 95% water depth below sea level with downward loop extending below said 95%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the depths disclosed by de Baan in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of having more easily moved riser sections being placed beyond the effect of displacements in an undesirable direction caused by sea currents as disclosed by de Baan (de Baan: Column 3: lines 26-34).
Regarding Claim 56, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, wherein vertical clearance between the seabed and the loop or a lowermost one of the loops is less than 5% of the water depth.
De Baan discloses an installed riser (de Baan: 13)) having vertical clearance between the seabed and the loop or a lowermost one of its loops is less than 5% of the water depth (de Baan: Column 3: lined 35-43; Figure 2: articulated joint 7 can be located at 95% water depth below sea level with downward loop extending below said 95%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the depths disclosed by de Baan in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of having more easily moved riser sections being placed beyond the effect of displacements in an undesirable direction caused by sea currents as disclosed by de Baan (de Baan: Column 3: lines 26-34).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endal in view of Hovde, further in view of Bhat (WO 2011028432).
Regarding Claim 45, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, but do not disclose comprising attaching the or each ballast weight to a point on the riser (Endal: 1) after that point is launched into the water.
Bhat discloses weights being added to a point on a riser after said riser has been placed in the water (Bhat: Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized the after-placement of weights method of Bhat in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of altering the curve of the riser after emplacement to a more desirable shape should the original result prove inadequate.
Claims 46 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endal in view of Hovde, further in view of Hatton (US Patent No. 9,534,452).
Regarding Claim 46, Endal and Hovde render obvious the method of Claim 32, but does not disclose further comprising suspending at least one chain from the at least one loop of the riser (Endal: 1).
Hatton discloses suspending at least one chain (Hatton 52)from the at least one loop of a riser.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized the chain of Hatton in place of the weights in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of allowing the weights to be made variable in an easily handled manner as disclosed by Hovde (Hovde: Column 8: line 59 – column 9: line 3).
Regarding Claim 57, Endal and Hovde render obvious the riser (Endal: 1) of Claim 47, but does not disclose further comprising one or more chains suspended from the at least one loop.
Hatton discloses suspending at least one chain (Hatton 52)from the at least one loop of a riser.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have utilized the chain of Hatton in place of the weights in the invention rendered obvious by Endal and Hovde with the predictable result of allowing the weights to be made variable in an easily handled manner as disclosed by Hovde (Hovde: Column 8: line 59 – column 9: line 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 32, the applicant argues that Endal teaches a method of laying a pipeline on a seabed and not installing a riser and that a steel catenary riser is installed to extend between the seabed and a floating platform at the surface of the sea while laying a pipeline only on the seabed does not result in a riser being installed as required by claim 32.
The examiner respectfully submits that while Endal does not teach of a riser (or pipeline) extending to a floating platform, the limitations of claim 32 do not require that said riser (or pipeline) extend to a floating platform. The examiner further respectfully submits that Endal referring to the pipeline as a pipeline instead of a riser does not exclude a pipeline from being considered a riser. In the invention of Hovde, for instance, the flexible tubular pipe (pipeline) can be seen both extending along the seabed (Figure 1) while also connecting to a floating platform, performing the function of a riser without being labeled as such. For this reason, the installation of the pipeline of Endal may be considered to meet the limitations of “installing a riser” without the explicit mention of connecting the pipeline extending along a seabed to a floating vessel.
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 DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM EST.
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 A 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Nicole Coy/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights