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 § 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) 16-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US 5655602; same patent family as EP 0840834 as cited by Applicant) in view of Bamford (US 20110056696).
CLAIM 16: Collins discloses a method for providing a subsea template system on a seabed. The method comprises placing the subsea template system (300) on the seabed (see Fig. 15). The subsea template system includes a structure including a guide (defined by well 306 and legs 303) with an opening for a well. The structure includes a plurality of supports (303) for engaging the seabed. A tail pipe (302) arranged within the opening. The tail pipe being cylindrical (see Fig. 15). Collins discloses rotating and moving axially the tail pipe relative to the guide and into the seabed to remain in the sea bed (see discussion of Example, col. 13, line 65 – col. 14, line 53). Drilling an opening in the seabed, inside the tail pipe, the opening of the seabed for receiving an outer conductor casing (see Fig. 15). Installing the outer conductor casing in the opening of the seabed (see Fig. 15). Applying cement between the outer conductor casing and the tail pipe (see discussion cited above further discussing cement).
Collins fails to disclose the tail pipe including a serrated end structure at a first end of the tail pipe.
Bamford discloses a subsea drilling method.
Bamford discloses a casing (14) with a serrated end (paragraph 0126) placed in a template (12) for drilling.
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 tail pipe end of Collins to be serrated as in Bamford with a reasonable expectation of success as Bamford teaches that increases the toughness of the casing (paragraph 0126).
CLAIM 17: Placing the subsea template system on the seabed comprises: installing the structure on the seabed and installing the tail pipe into the guide of the structure (see Collins, Fig. 15).
CLAIMS 18 and 19: The combination fails to disclose wherein the subsea template system further comprises a temporary lock coupled to the guide for locking the tail pipe relative to the guide; or wherein placing the subsea template system on the seabed comprises: locking the tail pipe to the guide with the temporary lock; installing the structure on the seabed; and releasing the temporary lock.
Examiner takes official notice that locks are well known in the art as a means of securing elements during transitionary phases.
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 Collins to include a lock with a reasonable expectation of success as the lock would perform the known function of securing the tail pipe in the guide as it is installed and making sure the system is installed correctly.
CLAIM 20: The tail pipe further comprises an interface for rotating and axially move the tail pipe relative to the structure (see Collins, col. 13, line 65 – col. 14, line 53).
CLAIM 21: Collins discloses rotating and moving axially the tail pipe relative to the guide and into the seabed to remain in the seabed comprises: lowering and connecting a drill string to the interface; and rotating the drill string and thereby the rotating the tail pipe while applying weight on the tail pipe to move the tail pipe axially relative to the structure (col. 13, line 65 – col. 14, line 53).
CLAIM 22: Collins fails to disclose tail pipe further comprises an interface for rotating and axially move the tail pipe relative to the structure.
Collins discloses the tail pipe may be “driven into the ground… by percussion or any other suitable means” (col. 10, lines 10-43).
Examiner takes official notice that rotating is a well known way of driving into the ground.
It would have been obvious to modify the system of Collins-Bamford to substitute the driving mechanism from driving to rotating with a reasonable expectation of success as the use of a known means of driving a tubular into the ground to achieve the same result.
CLAIM 23: Installing a dedicated tool on a drill string for connecting the drill string to the interface would be an obvious use of the above structure.
CLAIM 24: The subsea template system further comprises a stop defined by the guide for restricting axial downward movement of the tail pipe relative to the structure (see Collins, Fig.17 showing stop on top of cylinder).
CLAIM 25: Rotating and moving axially the tail pipe until the stop restricts the axial movement of the tail pipe relative to the structure would be an obvious use of the above structures.
CLAIM 26: The guide comprises a first guide for the tail pipe and a second guide for the conductor casing (see Collins, Fig. 17 showing multiple guides).
CLAIM 27: Rotating and moving axially the tail pipe relative to the guide while guiding the tail pipe with the first guide, and installing the outer conductor casing while guiding the conductor casing with the second guide would be obvious in view of the structures above.
CLAIMS 28-33: These structures are inherent to the above methods.
CLAIM 34: Collins-Bamford fails to disclose wherein the first guide for the tail pipe is removable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the guide removable with a reasonable expectation of success as making the part removable would allow for switching out damaged guides and such a modification is obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
CLAIM 35: The first guide for the tail pipe has a inner diameter smaller than the second guide for the outer conductor casing (see Collins, Fig. 17 showing different diameters).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art shows similar subsea template systems for seabed installation.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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