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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “temporarily” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “temporarily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how long the connection secured would be considered “temporarily” on either side of the range.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and do not correct the above issues.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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).
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 (see Figs.); (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, such as 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 temporarily securing the securing the first end connector to the tree frame sufficient to enable flushing of the WSJ conduit with a 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).
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.
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 (Older, disconnect mechanism 20).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses known systems and methods used in subsea well treatment operations.
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 3679
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676