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 7/7/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-13 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Older et al. (US 20160362956) in view of Smith (US 8186910) in further view of Roberts (WO 2018220361) in further view of Gutierrez (US 21030248195).
CLAIM 1: Older discloses a method for stimulation of a subsea oil and gas well (see paragraph 0006). The method comprises (a) deploying a tree cap on a subsea well (12) wherein the tree cap includes one or more fluid receptacles (see Fig. 1 showing tree cap); (b) deploying a rigless stimulation tool (RST) (manifold 14) at a predetermined posistion; (c) deploying at least one flexible well service jumper (WSJ) conduit (16) having a first end connector and a second end connector (ends of hose) from a well stimulation vessel (WSV) (all elements are deployed), (f) connecting the second end connector of the WSJ conduit to the RST to enable a fluidic connection (see Figs.); (g) supplying the hydrate inhibitor fluid and delivering the fluid through the WSJ conduit to displace water within the WSJ conduit (via treatment lines); (h) connecting the first end of the WSJ conduit to the tree cap via a hot stab connection (see Figs.; paragraph 0061); (j) deploying one or more fluid stimulation conduits from the WSV, wherein each of the fluid stimulation conduits has a first end connector and a second end connector, and wherein the first end connector is fluidically connected to a coiled tubing line on the WSV (see Figs.); (k) connecting the second end connectors of the fluid stimulation conduits to the RST to enable a fluidic connection; and (l) delivering a well stimulation fluid via the fluid stimulation conduits through the RST and via the WSJ conduit to the well(delivering the treatment fluids).
Older fails to disclose deploying tree cap using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV); where the WSJ conduit includes a plurality of attached buoyant members sufficient to enable movement by the ROV under an overhead obstacle, comprising a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or platform; (d) operating the ROV to move the first end connector of the WSJ conduit to a first location near the tree cap and removably securing the first end connector to the tree frame for a duration sufficient to enable flushing of the WSJ conduit with a hydrate inhibitor fluid; (g) the inhibitor fluid is a monoethylene glycol hydrate inhibitor fluid; (e) operating a crane on the WSV to lower the WSJ conduit along a predetermined route away from the tree cap toward the RST; (f) operating the ROV to connect the second end connector of the WSJ conduit to the RST to enable a fluidic connection; (g) operating the ROV having an onboard supply of the hydrate inhibitor fluid and delivering the fluid through the WSJ conduit to displace water within the WSJ conduit; (i) positioning the WSV in a safe overboarding zone (SOZ) at least 300 feet from the overhead obstacle.
Smith discloses a method of deploying flying leads.
Smith discloses using a ROV to handle subsea applications such as placing elements and establishing connections in a subsea system (see discussion of ROV operator). Smith further discloses buoyant members (such as module 142, see Fig 15) on the flying leads and other subsea equipment. Smith teaches using a crane (286) to assist in placing elements into the water.
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 Older to use ROVs and buoyancy modules with a reasonable expectation of success as Smith teaches the system can be used with any type of flying lead and thus simplifies the process by using the same method regardless of the specific connections used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the vessel in a safety zone as standard practice of operating vessels in a safe manner to minimize risk to life and property, the range of 300 feet is reasonable.
Roberts discloses a system for subsea fluid flow.
Roberts discloses circulating MEG to condition a subsea annulus.
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 method of Older-Smith to utilize MEG as the inhibitor with a reasonable expectation of success as the substitution of one known injector fluid for another as Roberts teaches it conditions the system and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a variety of fluids (paragraph 00076).
Gutierrez discloses a high flow hot stab connection.
Gutierrez discloses a high flow hot stab connection (100) for use in subsea conditions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the above combination with the high flow hot stab connection of Gutierrez with a reasonable expectation of success as the substitution of one known hot stab connector for another as Gutierrez teaches the need for higher flow rates than standard connections (paragraph 0004) and Older teaches the various connections can be used depending on need (paragraph 0061).
CLAIM 2: Smith discloses mounting a subsea element on a mud mat (70).
CLAIM 3: Smith discloses during deployment of the WSJ conduit between the well and the RST by the ROV, the WSJ conduit is supported by one or more buoyant members (a plurality of modules on each element).
CLAIM 4: The fluid stimulation conduits are connected to the coiled tubing lines via passive breakaway connectors comprising mid-line weak link connectors (Older, disconnect mechanism 20, paragraph 0033 discussing weak link).
CLAIM 5: Each of the coiled tubing lines include clump weights (as taught by Smith, col. 12, lines 6-10).
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 such the fluid stimulation conduits are lowered to a position where the clump weights are about 50-100 feet above the sea floor as a results effective variable as the weights and buoyancy elements must be balanced to maintain the conduits close to the subsea floor to allow the conduits to reach the appropriate elements.
CLAIM 6: Smith wherein the fluid stimulation conduits are deployed via a pendant cable from the WSV, and wherein the pendant cable is disconnected when the fluid stimulation conduits are in a substantially vertical orientation (the deployment from crane would be by cable, the elements are shown in the figures being vertical).
CLAIM 7: Smith discloses deploying conduits via a crane positioned on the WSV (see above), and wherein the crane is disconnected when the fluid stimulation conduits are in a substantially vertical orientation (see Smith Figures showing vertical conduits).
CLAIM 8: The WSJ conduit is supported by a plurality of buoyant members as required to avoid contact with or relieve weight on other subsea assets (Smith, buoyancy elements used to relieve weight).
CLAIM 9: The ROV is operated to position and install the WSJ conduit under the MODU or platform (Smith discloses the ROV operated, the combination would under the MODU of Older as an optimization of minimizing distance travelled).
CLAIM 10: Multiple WSJ conduits are connected between the tree cap and the RST (see Older, multiple lines).
CLAIM 11: The combination fails to disclose wherein the MEG hydrate inhibitor fluid is a dyed fluid enabling visual confirmation of complete displacement of water within the WSJ conduit.
Examiner takes official notice that dyes are well known in the art as a means of visual confirmation.
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 fluid of the above combination to have the well known dye with a reasonable expectation of success as the combination of known prior art elements in which the dye would perform the well known function of enabling easier confirmation of what fluid was where in the system.
CLAIM 12: Older discloses performing preliminary subsea pressure testing of the WSJ conduit (see paragraph 0055 discussing sensors constantly monitoring the pressure of the system, which would cover the preliminary testing).
CLAIM 13: The fluid stimulation conduits assume a catenary form when connected between the RST and the WSV (see Older, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/7/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The fluid inhibitor being MEG was not disclosed by the previously cited art; new art has been supplied.
The high flow hot stab was not disclosed by the previously cited art; new art has been supplied.
With respect to the safety zone, one of ordinary skill in the art would the project as a whole to arrive at the reasonable safety zone. Applicant has supplied no reasoning that 300 feet would supply any unexpected result, in fact the distance is deemed “typically” in the Specification. Standard safety procedures are obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination is improper, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Substantial modifications to the systems is accepted, as long as the teachings are consistent with the prior art.
The dependent claims are addressed 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