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 filings of 2/19/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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, 4, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hosie et al. (US 5339912).
CLAIM 1: Hosie discloses a well system. The system comprises a subsea system to be positioned on a floor of a subsea at or near a current well that is formed in a subsurface formation below the floor of the subsea (see col. 2, lines 16-37). The subsea system comprising at least one solids reduction device to receive solids that were part of the subsurface formation from downhole at a surface of the current well, wherein the at least one solids reduction device is configured to reduce a size of at least a portion of the solids (col. 4, lines 39-46).
CLAIM 4: A first transport device (slurry line 81) configured to transport a first subset of the solids downhole in the current well or a different well that is formed in the subsurface formation below the floor of the subsea, wherein the first subset of solids comprise the solids having a size that is within a size range defined by a minimum size threshold and a maximum size threshold (set by the processor), a second subset of solids comprise the solids having a size that is less than the minimum size threshold, and a third subset of solids comprise the solids having a size that is greater than the maximum size threshold.
CLAIM 6: Hosie discloses a second transport device configured to transport the second subset of solids or the third subset of solids to at least one of a location on the floor of the subsea, or a location above a surface of the subsea (Hosie teaches that the cuttings can be discharged to the sea).
CLAIM 7: The minimum size threshold is approximately 0.001 millimeters and the maximum size threshold is approximately 6 millimeters (Hosie discloses ½ inch and smaller).
CLAIM 9: The at least one solids reduction device is enclosed such that the at least one solids reduction device is operable when placed on the floor of the subsea isolated from exposure to water of the subsea (see Fig. 2 showing functioning on sea floor).
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) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosie.
CLAIM 2: Hosie fails to disclose wherein the at least one solids reduction device comprises a primary solids crusher and a secondary solids crusher.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to add a secondary solids crusher with a reasonable expectation of success as the reproduction of parts to assure the solids are properly crushed.
CLAIM 8: Hosie discloses the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hosie fails to disclose a magnetic separation device to be positioned to remove at least a portion of magnetic material from the solids prior to the at least one solids reduction device receiving the solids.
Examiner takes official notice that magnetic separations devices are well known in the art as a separation device.
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 Hosie to include the magnetic separator as a combination of known parts in which the magnetic separator would assist in the proper handling the cuttings.
Claim(s) 3 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosie in view of Reed (US 8783359).
CLAIM 3: Hosie fails to disclose a screener to be positioned to screen the solids from an output from the primary solids crusher and the secondary solids crusher, such that solids greater than a size threshold are returned to the secondary solids crusher to be reduced in size.
Reed discloses an apparatus for processing solids in subsea drilling.
Reed discloses a plurality of cutters (50a, 50b) such the solids larger than the size are recirculated and screened by the system (see col. 8, lines 5-23, pipes acting as screen).
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 to screen and crush to the appropriate size with a reasonable expectation of success as Reed teaches that subsea pumps are capable of handing specific sizes.
CLAIM 10: Hosie discloses a well system. The system comprises a subsea system to be positioned on a floor of a subsea at or near a current well that is formed in a subsurface formation below the floor of the subsea (see col. 2, lines 16-37). The subsea system comprising at least one solids reduction device to receive solids that were part of the subsurface formation from downhole at a surface of the current well, wherein the at least one solids reduction device is configured to reduce a size of at least a portion of the solids (col. 4, lines 39-46).
Reed discloses a solid separator (the SRD) configured to receive formation fluid that comprises solids, wherein the solid separator is configured to separate out at least a portion of the solids from the formation fluid, prior to transporting at least a portion of the formation fluid to a surface of the well.
CLAIM 11: See claims 2 and 3 above.
CLAIM 12: See claim 4 above.
CLAIM 13: See discussion of claims 5 and 20 below.
CLAIM 14: See claim 6 above.
CLAIM 15: See claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosie in view of Reed in further view of Clark et al. (US8695730).
CLAIMS 5 and 20: Hosie discloses the elements of claim 4 as discussed above.
Hosei fails to disclose wherein the current well is a multi-lateral well, wherein the solids received by the at least one solids reduction device are from a formation surrounding a first bore of the multi-lateral well and the solids transported back downhole in the current well are returned to a second bore of the multi-lateral well.
Clark discloses a system for drilling multilateral wells.
Clark discloses a first and second bore (20, 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Hosie to be used with a plurality of well bores with a reasonable expectation of success as Clark teaches the cuttings need to be processed in such systems as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art of Hosie fails to disclose the claimed elements of claim 1. Specifically, that the solids reduction device is not located subsea. With respect to the solids reduction device, claim 1 states “at least one solids reduction device to receive solids that were part of the subsurface formation from downhole at a surface of the current well, wherein the at least one solids reduction device is configured to reduce a size of at least a portion of the solids,” (emphasis added). Claim 1 requires the solids to travel up to the surface to reduced. That is the setup of Hosie as argued by Applicant. Claim 1 requires part of the well system to be subsea and part to be at the surface. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the three subsets as described in claims 4 and 7 and handled in claim 6 are not disclosed. With respect to claims 4 and 7, the grinding of the of the solids would result in materials too fine to grind further (the second subset), materials ground to the slurry level (the first subset), and larger materials that require further processing (the third subset). Further, the discussion of the second and third subsets in claim 4 are not directed to any physical limitation of the dependent claim. With to the sizes, the grinding implies that fine subset would approach zero, thus approximately 0.001 mm. The teaching of half inch would be approximately 6 mm. The handling of claim 6 is clarified in the incorporated reference of Hopper (US 5085277) which teaches multiple exits paths from the cutter including to the sea (see Fig. 9).
The arguments regarding claim 9 and the 103 rejections are based on the arguments related to claim 1. Thus, they are discussed above.
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