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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 8-18 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claim amendments to the apparatus claims of Group II defines the apparatus by the same application environment required by the elected method claims of Group I. This is found persuasive because the amended apparatus claims of Group II now recite structure that is directly tied to the same deployment environment required to practice the method, and as a result, examination of the method requires consideration of the same structure recited in the apparatus claims. Thus, the apparatus claims of Group II and the method claims of Group I share an overlapping inventive concept and require evaluation of the same structural features. Therefore, the restriction is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leger et al. (US 11,242,217).
As concerns claim 19, Leger shows a pipe deployment system (38), comprising: a vehicle (40); a deployment tool (42) attached to the vehicle (Fig. 4), the deployment tool comprising: a body (66A) having a spool engagement slot (shaft cradle seen on left side of Fig. 9 adjacent to socket 76); and a hydraulic motor (86) mounted to the body (Fig. 6), wherein the deployment tool is configured to deploy a flexible pipe (20) between a pump pad (12) and a first pad (14) in a well system (10); a spool (52) having a pin (54) extending along a rotational axis of the spool from an end of the spool (Fig. 5); and an engagement spline (58) rotationally engaging (via socket 76, brake disc 70, brake disc wheel 96, looped member 94, output wheel 92 & gearbox 88) the hydraulic motor (86) with the pin (Fig. 5-9). The deployment tool of Leger is capable of deploying the flexible pipe between a pump manifold and a well manifold. Furthermore, the pump manifold and the well manifold are not positively recited in the claim. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 8, 12-14, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger et al. (US 11,242,217) alone.
As concerns claim 8, Leger shows a method, comprising: providing a spool (52) of flexible pipe (20) on a deployment tool (42); attaching a first end (18A) of the flexible pipe to a pump pad (12), wherein the pump pad comprises hydraulic pumps (16) fluidly connected to the flexible pipe (Fig. 1); moving the deployment tool in a direction away from the pump pad while the first end of the flexible pipe is connected to the pump pad to unreel the flexible pipe from the spool (Fig. 1; col 16, ln 14-39; col 24, ln 6-17: the pipe deployment trailer 42, may be implemented to enable the pipe deployment equipment to operate to facilitate deploying (e.g., laying) the pipe segment 20 into the pipeline system 10 as well as actively unspooling the pipe segment 20 off of the pipe drum 52); and using a hydraulic motor (86) mounted to the deployment tool (66A) to control tension (via tension sensor 106) in the flexible pipe as the flexible pipe is unreeled from the spool (Fig. 4, 6 & 17). Leger discloses the claimed invention except for a pump manifold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a pump manifold on the pump pad for the expected benefit of combining the fluid from the one or more fluid pumps and injecting the fluid into the bore of the pipe segment of the pipeline system. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a pump manifold between the pumps and the flexible pipe would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Leger to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 12, Leger shows wherein providing the spool of flexible pipe on the deployment tool comprises: providing the deployment tool on a vehicle (40), wherein the deployment tool comprises a body (66A) having a spool engagement slot (shaft cradle seen on left side of Fig. 9 adjacent to socket 76); moving the vehicle toward the spool of flexible pipe until the spool engagement slot aligns with a pin (54) extending from an axial end of the spool of flexible pipe (Fig. 5); engaging the spool engagement slot with the pin to interlock the pin within the spool engagement slot (Fig. 6); and while the pin is held within the spool engagement slot, using the deployment tool to pick up (via lifting assembly 68) the spool of flexible pipe (Fig. 6).
As concerns claim 13, Leger shows engaging an engagement spline (58) between the hydraulic motor of the deployment tool and the pin of the spool, wherein rotation of the engagement spline by the hydraulic motor rotates the pin (Fig. 5-9).
As concerns claim 14, Leger shows wherein the spool comprises a second pin (not visible in Fig. 5-9) extending from an opposite axial end of the spool of flexible pipe, wherein the deployment tool comprises a second spool engagement slot (not visible in Fig. 5-9) in the body, and wherein moving the vehicle toward the spool of flexible pipe further comprises aligning the second spool engagement slot with the second pin (not visible in Fig. 5-9).
As concerns claim 18, Leger shows setting a pressure limit (via pressure sensor 106 & control subs-system 104) on hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic motor, wherein when pressure of the hydraulic fluid reaches the pressure limit, a control valve (100) in the hydraulic motor will release to allow additional rotational spin of the spool (Fig. 6).
As concerns claim 21, Leger discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the hydraulic motor is a radial piston hydraulic motor. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have utilized a radial piston hydraulic motor for the hydraulic motor, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose other than being an alternative to using another type of hydraulic motor. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the invention to perform equally well with a different type of hydraulic motor because the tension in the flexible pipe would still have been capable of being controlled. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a radial piston hydraulic motor for the hydraulic motor would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Leger to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of McNeel et al. (US 7,841,394).
As concerns claim 9, Leger shows unreeling the flexible pipe (20) until a first pad (14) is reached (Fig. 1); and fluidly connecting a second end (18N) of the flexible pipe to the first pad (Fig. 1). Leger discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first pad comprises: a well manifold; and a first well fluidly connected to the well manifold; and fluidly connecting a second end of the flexible pipe to the well manifold. McNeel teaches wherein a first well pad comprises: a well manifold (405); and a first well (401) fluidly connected to the well manifold (Fig. 4; col 5, ln 24-31); and fluidly connecting an end of a flexible pipe (108) to the well manifold (Fig. 1 & 4). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Leger, as taught by McNeel, to include a well manifold and a first well on the first well pad for the expected benefit of controlling the destination of the fluid from the flexible pipe. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a well manifold and a first well on the first well pad would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the system design.
As concerns claim 11, Leger shows wherein the unreeling further comprises connecting multiple segments (20A, 20B) of the flexible pipe in an end to end manner to extend from the pump pad to the first well pad (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 15, the combination teaches providing a second line (McNeel: 109) of flexible pipe on the spool of flexible pipe; while the spool of flexible pipe is on the deployment tool, attaching a first end of the second line of flexible pipe to the pump manifold (McNeel: 107) in the pump pad; moving the deployment tool in a direction away from the pump pad toward a second well pad (McNeel: 403) while the first end of the second line of flexible pipe is connected to the manifold to unreel the second line of flexible pipe from the spool (Leger: Fig. 1); using the hydraulic motor mounted to the deployment tool to control the tension in the flexible pipe as the second line of flexible pipe is unreeled from the spool (Leger: Fig. 4, 6 & 17); and fluidly connecting the second line of flexible pipe to a second well manifold (McNeel: 405) in the second well pad (McNeel: Fig. 1 & 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leger et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Reynolds et al. (US 4,148,445).
As concerns claim 20, Leger discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the deployment tool further comprises a follower, and wherein the follower is movable along an axial length of the spool. Reynolds teaches a deployment tool (Fig. 1) comprising a spool (R), wherein the deployment tool further comprises a follower (54), and wherein the follower is movable (via bar 50) along an axial length of the spool (Fig. 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Leger, as taught by Reynolds, to include a follower on the deployment tool for the expected benefit of guiding the flexible pipe onto and/or off of the spool during spooling and unspooling. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a follower on the deployment tool would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the system design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 16 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious a method, comprising: providing a spool of flexible pipe on a deployment tool; attaching a first end of the flexible pipe to a pump manifold in a pump pad, wherein the pump pad comprises hydraulic pumps fluidly connected to the pump manifold; moving the deployment tool in a direction away from the pump pad while the first end of the flexible pipe is connected to the manifold to unreel the flexible pipe from the spool; using a hydraulic motor mounted to the deployment tool to control tension in the flexible pipe as the flexible pipe is unreeled from the spool; providing a central operation system on one of the pump pad or the first well pad, the central operation system comprising a primary computer system with a primary user interface; providing a remote operation system located on the other of the pump pad or the first well pad, the remote operation system comprising a remote computer system in communication with the primary computer system and electronic controllers in the other of the pump pad or the first well pad; and sending signals between the central operation system and the remote operation system to control fluid flow through the flexible pipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rao et al. (CN 212425012) and Dion et al. (US 10,865,068) each show a reel system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672