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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 12-13 have been cancelled. New claims 15-16 have been added. Claims 1-11 and 14-16 are pending in the application.
With the submission, applicant suggests that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0307765 A1 (van Arkel et al.) is improper because van Arkel et al. does not disclose a “subsea” system. The argument is not persuasive.
First, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “subsea system” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Second, van Arkel et al. contemplates the gas lift operations being used in offshore wells, specifically reciting the advantages of the system over traditional operations using an ESP; citing the limited modifications required to the surface equipment, and the increased flexibility and lower expenses that come with using the system (see at least, 0038-0039, 0047). Further, nothing in the reference implicitly or specifically precludes the use of the system of van Arkel et al. in an offshore or subsea environment . These rejections will be maintained.
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) 1-10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0307765 A1 (van Arkel et al.).
As concerns claim 1, van Arkel et al. discloses a subsea system for interconnecting producing and injecting wells in pairs to an aggregating component, comprising: at least one production line 28 that connects the aggregating component 24 to a producing well 4, wherein the producing well is an oil, gas, or oil and gas producing well (0025); at least one water, gas, or alternating water and gas injection line 22 that connects the aggregating component to an injecting well 3, wherein the injecting well is configured to inject water, gas, or water and gas (0025) into a permeable reservoir 1; and at least one service line 16 that connects the producing well and the injecting well (see, 0026, gas fraction 12 is injected into gas lift 16, see figure 1).
As concerns claim 2, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the production line,
the injection line, and the service line has a pressure class compatible with the pressure requirements of the production line and the injection line, and wherein each of the production line, the injection line, and the service line has a physical-chemical stability against fluids of the production line and the injection line (see 0043, discussing the corrosion minimizing for the lines, the examiner notes that, in as much as the conduits are being used for production and injection, they are implicitly suited for the disclosed purpose).
As concerns claim 3, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the aggregating component 24 is a production unit or a subsea manifold (0028).
As concerns claim 4, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one service line interconnects the injecting well and the producing well by means of respective annular or service hubs 21,23.
As concerns claim 5, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the injecting well comprises a set of flow control valves for partitioning gas flow between the producing well and the injecting well (manifold 21 performs this function, see 0026).
As concerns claim 6, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a service line circuit comprises a blocking mechanism (packer 19) to isolate the fluids inside the service line in relation to the producing well and the injecting well.
As concerns claim 7, van Arkel et al. discloses a method for interconnecting producing and injecting wells in pairs to an aggregating component 24, comprising: interconnecting a producing well 4 with a production aggregating component 24, wherein the producing well is an oil, gas, or oil and gas producing well (0025); interconnecting an injecting well 3 with an injection aggregating component 24, wherein the injecting well is configured to inject water, gas, or water and gas into a permeable reservoir 1; and interconnecting the injecting 3 well with the producing well 4, wherein the producing well and the injecting well are subsea wells (see at least 0038-0039, 0047).
As concerns claim 8, van Arkel et al. discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising partitioning a flow between the producing well and the injecting well by means of a set of flow control valves of the injecting well (the manifold 21 performs this function, see 0026).
As concerns claim 9, van Arkel et al. discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising isolating fluids in a service line in relation to the producing well and the injecting well by means of actuating a blocking mechanism 19 in a service line circuit.
As concerns claim 10, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an umbilical 22 configured to inject gas into the producing well (see figure 1).
As concerns claim 14, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the permeable reservoir 1 interconnects the injecting well and the producing well (as illustrated).
As concerns claim 16, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a first end of the service line is coupled to the producing well and a second end of the service line is coupled to the injecting well (see at least 0026 and figure 1, note the interconnection of the wells illustrated).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Arkel et al. in view of US 2009/0264642 A1 (Horton).
As concerns claim 11, van Arkel et al. discloses the system of claim 10, but lacks to explicitly disclose wherein the umbilical is an Integrated Service Umbilical (ISU) or an Electro-Hydraulic Umbilical (EHU).
Horton discloses a subsea system that uses umbilical 26, wherein the umbilical is an electro-hydraulic umbilical (see at least 0034). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing, would obviously have considered using the EHU of Horton in the system with a reasonable expectation of success, as this would provide power and communication to a wide variety of subsea equipment.
As concerns claim 15, Horton discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one service line is a flexible pipeline (see figure 6 and 0034, note that the umbilical is supported by tensioner 600 and played out from hose reel 612).
Conclusion
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