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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As concerns claim 14, line 3 recites the limitation "the conduit" which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which conduit is being referred to as three have thus been positively recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Portman (US 9,181,786).
1. A system, comprising:
a path comprising a conduit (38, 57) coupled to a well test package (41) disposed on an offshore vessel (43), wherein the path runs from the offshore vessel to a seabed to fluidly conduct well test fluids from the well test package to the seabed.
PNG
media_image1.png
785
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the path comprises a subsea tree (25) disposed at the seabed,
wherein the subsea tree when in operation receives the well test fluids (gas via line 57).
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the subsea tree when in operation transmits the well test fluids to a well coupled to the subsea tree (Figure 3).
4. The system of claim 2, comprising a second conduit (any between well and vessel, such as that between tree outlet 29 and processor 41) coupled to the subsea tree (via other intermediary equipment as shown in Figure 3), wherein the subsea tree when in operation transmits the well test fluids to the second conduit.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the second conduit (38) when in operation transmits the well test fluids to a production facility. (Figure 3)
6. The system of claim 2, wherein the path comprises a safety device (at least 50) comprising at least one valve, wherein the safety device is coupled to the conduit.
8. The system of claim 6, wherein the safety device (50) is disposed on the seabed. (Figure 1)
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the safety device is coupled to the subsea tree, wherein the safety device in operation transmits the well test fluids to the subsea tree (Figure 1).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the path comprises a choke as an access point to the subsea tree, wherein the choke when in operation receives the well test fluids from the safety device and provides the well test fluids to the subsea tree. (50 is said to be a choke; furthermore, line 47 is said to also contain additional valves, analogous to chokes: Col 3, Ln 42-52)
11. The system of claim 2, wherein the subsea tree is coupled to the offshore vessel via a second conduit (38) to transmit fluids from a well to the well test package. (Figure 3)
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the subsea tree, when in operation, transmits the well test fluids from a portion of the well. (As gas being injected may partially be gas produced from the well, the claim is found to be anticipated by the system of Figure 3)
13. The system of claim 11, comprising a third conduit coupled to the subsea tree, wherein the subsea tree when in operation transmits the well test fluids to the third conduit. (Flow path between 29 and 31 constitutes a third conduit)
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the path comprises a safety device (at least 50) disposed on the offshore vessel or the seabed and comprising at least one valve, wherein the safety device is coupled to the conduit (as best understood) and the subsea tree, wherein the safety device in operation transmits the well test fluids to the subsea tree. (Figures 1, 3, and 4)
15. A system, comprising a path comprising a conduit (at least 38, 57) and a well test package (35) disposed on a seabed and coupled to the conduit, wherein the conduit when in operation transmits fluids from a well (11) to the well test package, wherein the well test package in operation performs a well test on the fluids to generate well test fluids.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the path comprises a subsea tree (25) coupled to the well test package, wherein the subsea tree when in operation receives the well test fluids and transmits the well test fluids to a reservoir (41) or via a second conduit (47) coupled to the subsea tree. (Figures 1, 3)
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the well comprises the reservoir. (Gas is reinjected via 47 / 65 / 67)
18. A method for testing a subsea well, the method comprising:
producing fluids from the subsea well at a first wellhead (11), a first Christmas tree (25), or a first alternative access point;
passing the fluids through a subsea safety device (50);
injecting well test fluids into either a reservoir or an existing subsea production stream at a second wellhead, a second Christmas tree, or a second alternative access point (via alternative access point 47 / 57/ 65/ 67).
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising passing the fluids through a jumper or a choke access point (47 may be considered a jumper / alternatively 47 may include additional chokes or valves therein).
20. The method of claim 18, comprising generating the well test fluids via the subsea safety device (50). (As discussed in Portman, Abastract, in the event that fluid is produced, separated, reinjected and further produced, this claim is anticipated by Portman.)
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Yemington (WO 2011/008834).
1. A system, comprising:
a path comprising a conduit (36, 23, 27, 10) coupled to a well test package (29) disposed on an offshore vessel (Figure 4), wherein the path runs from the offshore vessel to a seabed to fluidly conduct well test fluids from the well test package to the seabed. (Paragraph [0021])
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the path comprises a subsea tree (20) disposed at the seabed,
wherein the subsea tree when in operation receives the well test fluids. (Figure 4)
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the subsea tree (20) when in operation transmits the well test fluids to a well (not shown) coupled to the subsea tree.
4. The system of claim 2, comprising a second conduit (10) coupled to the subsea tree, wherein the subsea tree when in operation transmits the well test fluids to the second conduit.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the second conduit (10) when in operation transmits the well test fluids to a production facility. (10 is called a production riser)
6. The system of claim 2, wherein the path comprises a safety device (at least 11) comprising at least one valve, wherein the safety device is coupled to the conduit.
8. The system of claim 6, wherein the safety device is disposed on the seabed (Figure 4).
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the safety device is coupled to the subsea tree, wherein the safety device in operation transmits the well test fluids to the subsea tree. (Figure 4)
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Millheim et al (US 2015/0096760).
1. A system, comprising:
a path comprising a conduit (at least 2, Fig 5) coupled to a well test package (5) disposed on an offshore vessel, wherein the path runs from the offshore vessel to a seabed to fluidly conduct well test fluids from the well test package to the seabed. (Paragraphs [0051]-[0054]; "If on the other hand the percentage of contaminants exceeds acceptable standards, the content is stored in tanks on the vessel for subsequent disposal (8), either by discharging at treatment terminals or injection into industrial waste wells.")
PNG
media_image2.png
657
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Maher (US 10,036,226).
1. A system, comprising:
a path comprising a conduit (16) coupled to a well test package disposed on an offshore vessel, wherein the path runs from the offshore vessel to a seabed to fluidly conduct well test fluids from the well test package to the seabed (Column 7, Line 63 - Column 8, Line 9; "the early production system 100 enables either a DP drill ship, MODU or another similar vessel to perform well test operations").
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the path comprises a subsea tree (18) disposed at the seabed,
wherein the subsea tree when in operation receives the well test fluids.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portman in view of Millheim et al (US 2015/0096760).
As concerns claim 7, Portman discloses the system of claim 6, however fails to specify wherein the safety device is disposed on the offshore vessel.
Millheim et al (US 2015/0096760) however teaches wherein a vessel comprises safety devices (Paragraph [0099]) for the purpose of maintaining containment of spills during the event of accidental disconnections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Portman as taught by Millheim to include the claimed safety devices also being located on the offshore vessel, for the expected benefit of providing additional capability to contain potential spills of effluent material, in order to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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 on (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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
