DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. All currently pending claims have been considered below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the two connection lines” should read “the two fluid connection lines”. Consistent nomenclature should be used through any given claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9, 11, & 13-17 are 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.
The examiner respectfully notes that there are a substantial number of 112(b) issues identified below. The examiner has attempt to identify all such issues in the claims, but the list should not be considered exhaustive. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant's domestic Representative carefully review all the claims for any similar issues. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent terminology should be used through any given claim set. The narrowing of a previously recited step or feature should clearly reference the original step or feature, and not redundantly recite the new limitation with no relationship to the original.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the main injection line is a carbon dioxide injection line”. The claim is an apparatus / system claim, not a method claim, so this appears to largely be a recitation of intended use. It is unclear what is additionally structurally required by calling the line “a carbon dioxide injection line”. The claim does not require a carbon dioxide reservoir and pump attached to the main injection line, as contrasted with claim 12, which recites "a storage for carbon dioxide". What is the additional structural limitation of a “carbon dioxide injection line” that is different from / narrower than a “main injection line”? How does the fluid moving through the line structurally define the line itself? Applicant does not appear to disclose anything special about the lines per se and they are shown fully schematically. As an apparatus claim, patentability is determined by the structure alone and it is unclear what exactly is additionally required by claim 2 that is not already required by claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the main injection line is the only available pressure line subsea”. The examiner views this as indefinite for two reasons. First, parent claim 1 itself plainly requires multiple lines in addition the “main injection line”. Are the “fluid line, “first fluid connection line,” and “second fluid connection line” not all “pressure lines” that are “subsea”? Similarly, figure 1 clearly shows “cross over line 103” and “crossover line 104” that would both appear to quite reasonably be called an “subsea pressure line”.
Second, while negative limitations are not improper per se, the recitation of claim 3 appears to attempt to exclude literally every subsea pressure line anywhere, perhaps anywhere else in the entire world. In other words, an entirely different subsea well system that is “available” anywhere in the world almost certainly has “a subsea pressure line” at the level of generality currently recited. Does Applicant intend this to be directed to the only injection line for a single wellbore? If so, the examiner respectfully asserts this is not clearly articulated in the negative limitation of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites "the pressure increasing unit [130] comprises a pump for pumping fluid either to or from the fluid line [330]". However parent claim 1 recites at least four “fluid lines”: “a fluid line” (330), “a first fluid connection line” (101), “a main injection line” (250), and “a second fluid injection line” (102). While the phrasing between “a fluid line” (330, claim 1) and “the fluid line” (330, claim 4) is consistent, Applicant has removed the element numbers from the claim (not improper but also removes phrasing that would render this limitation clear), and claim 1 also recites the “pressure increasing unit [170]” is attached to the “first fluid connection line” and the “main injection line”. “Pressure increasing unit” 170 is not recited with any direction association with “fluid line” 330. Together, the examiner respectfully asserts it is unclear which “fluid line” is being referenced in claim 4 and where the pump of claim 4 is located.
Claim 7 recites “the cross over line”. However parent claim 6 recites “a first cross over line” and claim 7 previously recites “a second cross over line”. Applicant has removed the element numbers from the claim, as is common and Applicant’s right. However doing so removed much of the clarity from this limitation as it is now unclear which of the two previously recited “cross over lines” the phrase “the cross over line” is referencing.
Claim 9 recites “the system is arranged separately from, and fluid connected to, the Xmas”. The examiner views this as indefinite for three reasons. First, and most simply, “the Xmas” lacks proper antecedent basis in parent claim 1. Is Applicant intending to reference “the Xmas tree production system”? Did Applicant intend to only strike “(300)” in the amendments filed 9/5/2025?
Second, how far away does “separately” require? If they are merely distinct structures, but can be basically adjacent to each other, this appears to already be required by parent claim 1.
Finally, and most importantly, claim 9 seems to regard “the system” as being distinct / separate from “Xmas tree”. However, the examiner interprets parent claim 1 as effectually requiring the “Xmas tree” as a sub-feature of “the system”, not distinct from it. If Applicant regards the preamble of claim 1, including “an Xmas tree... comprising a fluid line between a set of two or more barrier valves... and at least one pressure monitoring device” as not being required by “the system”, this renders claim 1 indefinite because the body of the claim references the “barrier valve[s]” recited in the preamble. Per MPEP 2111.02, subsection I, this suggests the preamble recites limiting structure. This is similarly illustrated by claims 11.
The examiner respectfully asserts that in the present case ‘the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999)’ (MPEP 2111.02). Therefore the examiner respectfully asserts it is unclear how or if claim 9 structurally limits parent claim 1, and is unclear as to what is encompassed by “separately from the system” when the “system” appears to encompass the Xmas tree.
Claim 11 recites "the fluid supply for the pressure increasing unit". "The fluid supply" lacks proper antecedent basis.
Independent claim 13 is held as indefinite for two reasons. First, as a method claim, everything in the preamble is generally regarded as being required. There is, for example, no real intended use / functional considerations in a method claim.
Therefore, "a fluid line" in the second body clause should be "the fluid line" because the same amendments filed 9/5/2025 add "a fluid line" to the preamble. Similarly, "a pressure monitoring device" in the fourth body clause should be "the pressure monitoring device", because this feature was added to the preamble in the amendments filed 9/5/2025.
Second, the final clause of the claim recites "checking at least one of [the] pressure monitoring devices to detect pressure changes". However this is recited with no meaningful relationship to anything else in the method, particularly the "increasing pressure or decreasing pressure" and "keeping the increased pressure or the decreased pressure" limitations. In other words, it is unclear how or if the "pressure changes" in the final clause differ from the pressure changing steps previously recited, or if it is directed to the changes that may occur during the "keeping the increased pressure..." limitation. If Applicant is intending to pressure test a system, the "checking... to detect pressure changes" step should be more clearly linked the relevant prior steps of the claim and the purported purpose of the preamble. In Applicant's attempt to word claim 13 so broadly and generically, they have not actually recited any clear testing steps, nor linked the various clauses to each other in a clear methodological way. The examiner respectfully asserts this is further illustrated by the 112(b) issues with dependent claims 14-17, discussed below.
Claims 14-17 depend from claim 13.
Claim 14 recites "when testing with a test pressure above a pressure of the reservoir", which the examiner holds to be indefinite for several reasons. First, this is not a positive method step recitation, but rather appears to attempt to merely encompass the possibility of applying such pressure. As a method, the steps should be more plainly recited. In other words, is "a test pressure above a pressure of the reservoir" applied in claim 14 or not?
Similarly, it is unclear how or if "testing with a test pressure above a pressure of the reservoir" operates dependent on parent claim 13, which recites no "test pressure" (see the above 112(b) discussion for claim 13). For example, is the "test pressure" of claim 14 commensurate with the "increasing pressure, or decreased pressure" in claim 13? What is the "test pressure" in parent claim 13? In Applicant's attempt to word claim 13 so broadly & generically, they have submitted a dependent claim therefrom that references aspects of the disclosure that are not actually recited in the parent claim.
Further, it is unclear how or if the "using the pressure increasing unit to increase a fluid test pressure" differs from the "test pressure" in the preamble of claim 14 and/or the "increasing pressure" step already in parent claim 13. Is this an additional pressure increasing step or is this an indefinite rephrasing (so-to-speak) of a step already in claim 13?
Similarly, it is unclear how or if the "a desired barrier test pressure value" differs from the "increasing pressure", "keeping the increased pressure", and/or "checking... to detect pressure changes" already in parent claim 13.
Claim 15 is held as indefinite for several reasons. First, the preamble recites "when barrier testing a master valve" which is not a clear method step as similarly described for claim 14 above.
Second, it is unclear how or if this "barrier testing a master valve" differs from the "barrier testing of a Xmas tree injection system" of claim 13 and/or the "increasing pressure", "keeping the increased pressure", and/or "checking... to detect pressure changes" already in parent claim 13. How many "tests" and pressure changes are being performed between claims 13 & 15?
Third, the examiner suggests the phrase "the barrier valve comprising a master valve" be used in the beginning of the claim rather than the current phrase of "barrier testing a master valve, the master valve being the upstream barrier valve". If Applicant is changing the nomenclature of "upstream barrier valve" to "master valve" this should be clearly recited up front, and not following other recitations of a "master valve".
Fourth, it is unclear how or if the step of "using the pressure increasing unit to increase the fluid test pressure in the fluid line to a desired barrier test pressure value" differs from the step of "increasing pressure... in the fluid line... using a pressure increasing unit" already recited in parent claim 13. How many different "tests" and pressure changes are going on in claims 13 & 15?
Similarly, it is unclear how or if the "keeping the fluid test pressure for a predetermined time period" differs from "keeping the increased pressure... for a predetermined time period" already in parent claim 13. How many different "tests" are going on in claims 13 & 15?
Similarly, it is unclear how or if the "checking the pressure monitoring devices in the fluid to detect pressure changes" differ from the "checking at least one of [the] pressure monitoring devices to detect pressure changes" already in parent claim 13. How many different "tests" are going on in claims 13 & 15?
Further, claim 15 references "the one or more valves positioned in the first connection line" and "the one or more valves positioned in the second connection line". Neither the valves or connection lines have prior basis in either claims 13 or 15. It is therefore unclear if Applicant is requiring a new feature using improper antecedent terminology or if Applicant is attempting to referencing a previous element using a different naming convention.
Finally, as discussed for claim 13 above, the final "checking the pressure monitoring devices..." step of claim 15 is not linked to the "keeping the fluid test pressure for a predetermined time period" step. So is the "detect[ing] pressure changes" therefore directed to the "increase the fluid test pressure" step, or is the method monitoring for changes while trying to hold the pressure constant. In Applicant's attempt to word the claims broadly, they have submitted method steps that are not methodologically linked to each other, and which therefore could apply to numerous other aspects of the claim in an indefinite manner.
Claim 16 begins with "when testing with a test pressure below a pressure of the reservoir" and has commensurate limitations as in claim 14, except with the lower pressure. Claim 16 is held as indefinite as similarly described for claim 14 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
Further, claim 16 recites "the first cross over line", "the first fluid connection line", "the second cross over line", "the second fluid connection line" (first body clause), "the first connection line", "the second connection line" (second body clause), "the first fluid connection line", "the second connection line", and "the second fluid connection line" (third body clause), all of which lack early proper antecedent basis in parent claim 13. Rather "a first cross over line" and "a second cross over line" are recited in the second to last clause. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent terminology should be used through any given claim set.
Further, it is unclear how or if the step of "using the pressure increasing unit to reduce a fluid pressure in the fluid line to a desired barrier test pressure value" differs from the step of "increasing pressure, or decreasing pressure, in a fluid line... using a pressure increasing unit..." already in parent claim 1. How many different "tests" are going on in claims 13 & 16?
Claim 17 begins with "when testing a wing valve", which is held as indefinite as similarly described above and respectfully not repeated again here.
Further, as similarly described claim 15, if Applicant is changing the nomenclature of "the downstream barrier valve" to "a wing valve", that change should be up front and before referencing the "wing valve". For example: "wherein the downstream barrier valve comprises a wing valve".
If the "wing valve" of claim 17 is the "downstream barrier valve" per the preamble of claim 17, it is unclear how or if the step of "closing the wing valve" in claim 17 differs from the step of "closing the downstream barrier valve" step already in parent claim 13.
Claim 17 references "the first connection line", "the second fluid connection line", and "the crossover valves", all of which lack proper antecedent basis in parent claim 13. Consistent nomenclature and antecedent terminology should be used through any given claim set.
It is unclear how or if the step of "using the pressure increasing unit to increase a fluid test pressure in the fluid line to a desired barrier test pressure value..." differs from the "increasing pressure..." step of claim 13.
It is unclear how or if the "keeping the fluid test pressure..." differs from the "keeping the increased pressure..." step of claim 13.
It is unclear how or if the "checking the pressure monitoring devices in the fluid to detect pressure changes" differs from the "checking at least one of [the] pressure monitoring devices to detect pressure changes" step of claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 & 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2608418 (Stokke). A copy of Stokke was provided by Applicant in their IDS and therefore an additional copy is respectfully not included with this action. Overlapping 102 rejections are respectfully presented. See the rejection over US 2025/0109683 (Moe) below.
Independent claim 1. Stokke discloses a system for barrier testing ("system 1" - title, abstract) of a[n] Xmas tree injection system (generally donated as "subsea tree 2" - fig 1, page 8:20), the Xmas tree being subsea (ibid) and comprising a fluid line (fluid lines which define "annular cross 5" - fig 1 & page 8:33-35) between a set of two or more barrier valves ("valves 4a-4m include an annulus master valve (AMV) 4a, an annulus isolation valve (AIV) 4b, an annulus swab valve (ASV) 4c, an annulus wing valve (AVVV) 4d, an annulus vent valve (AVV) 4e, a gas injection valve (GIV) 4f, a production master valve (PMV) 4g, a production swab valve (PSV) 4h, a production wing valve (PVVV) 4i, a crossover valve (XOV) 4j, a surface-controlled subsea safety valve (SCSSV) 4k, a service injection valve (SIV) 41, and a production choke valve (PCV) 4m" - page 8:23-28), one of the barrier valves of the set of two barrier valves being an upstream barrier valve (any of valves 4a, 4k, 4b - all in fig 1) closer to a reservoir (reservoir into which wellbore 8 extends) and the other barrier valve being a downstream barrier valve (any of valves 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4h, 4j, or 4m - all in fig 1) closer to an environment (all of the above are closer to the surface environment in the system than the first set of valves identified above. Fluid lines between all the above valves are clearly shown in fig 1), and at least one pressure monitoring device ("A plurality of pressure sensors 20a-20e" - page 9:10) in each of the fluid line and downstream of the downstream barrier valve (20a, 20b, 20e are all in the fluid line and downstream of at least one of the above identified "downstream barrier valves"), the system comprising:
a first fluid connection line ("production cross 7" - fig 1) from a main injection line (Can be drawn to either of: lines 6a & 3 in fig 1; the fluid lines in "hydraulic power unit 24" in fig 2. "Production cross 7" extends from both) to a pressure increasing unit (hydraulic piston 12" - page 9:17-18), with one or more valves (4g, 4i, 10d, 10c, 16b) positioned in the first connection line (all in / at the end of 7: fig 1); and
a second fluid connection line ("service line 14" - fig 1) from the pressure increasing unit (14 extends to 12: fig 1) to a first connection point on the fluid line (14 connects to 5 between "AWV" and "XOV": fig 1) between the downstream barrier valve (any of valves 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4h, 4j, or 4m - all in fig 1) and the upstream barrier valve (any of valves 4a, 4k, 4b - all in fig 1; the connection point between 14 & 5 is between downstream valve 4c and upstream valve 4a), with one or more valves (4l) positioned in the second fluid connection line (4l is in 14: fig 1),
wherein the system is configured to provide fluid at different test pressures (abstract; first ¶ of page 8; "In this way, the subsea hydraulic power unit 24 actuates the hydraulic piston 12 to pressurise or depressurise the fluid in the working chamber 26 and hence in the service line 14" - page 10:34-36) to the fluid line (fluid lines which define "annular cross 5" and which 14 connects to: fig 1) between the downstream barrier valve (4c) and the upstream barrier valve (4a).
2. In light of the 112(b) rejection of this claim above, the limitations have been interpreted as best able. The system according to claim 1, wherein the main injection line (lines 6a & 3 - fig 1) is a carbon dioxide injection line ("a gas injection well (e.g. a CO2 injection well)" - page 2:36).
3. In light of the 112(b) rejection of this claim above, the limitations have been interpreted as best able. The system according to claim 1, wherein the main injection line (lines 6a & 3 - fig 1 - for claim 3) is the only available pressure line subsea (This are the only disclosed production line in the embodiment of fig 1. The other lines are for the annulus).
4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the pressure increasing unit comprises a pump ("hydraulic power unit 24 configured to drive the hydraulic piston 12" - page 9:17-18) for pumping fluid either to or from the fluid line ("In this way, the subsea hydraulic power unit 24 actuates the hydraulic piston 12 to pressurise or depressurise the fluid in the working chamber 26 and hence in the service line 14" - page 10:34-36).
5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the pressure increasing unit (hydraulic piston 12" - page 9:17-18) is an intensifier (it intensifies pressure: page 10:34-36).
6. The system according to claim 1, further comprises a first cross over line (bypass line holding valve 16b - fig 1) bypassing the pressure increasing unit (16b directly connects 7 & 14 and bypasses "hydraulic piston 12": fig 1), the cross over line connecting the first fluid connection line ("production cross 7" - fig 1) and the second fluid connection line ("service line 14" - fig 1).
7. The system according to claim 6, further comprising:
a second cross over line (bypass line holding valve 4j) bypassing the pressure increasing unit (fig 1), the cross over line connecting the first connection line ("production cross 7" - fig 1) and the second fluid connection line ("service line 14" - fig 1);
a first cross over valve positioned in the first cross over line (16b as defined for claim 6 above);
a second cross over valve positioned in the second cross over line (4j as defined above);
the one or more valves positioned in the first connection line (4g, 4i, 10d, 10c, 16b) comprising a first inboard isolation valve (all of these valves isolate their respective sides, and are "inboard" the system: fig 1) positioned between a first connection of the first cross over line and the first fluid connection line (4i is in 7 and...) and a second connection of the second cross over line and the first fluid connection line (...4i is between 16b and 4j); and
the one or more valves positioned in the second fluid connection line (4l) comprising a second inboard isolation valve (4l is a valve that isolates its respective sides and is "inboard" the system: fig 1) positioned between a third connection of the first cross over line and the second fluid line (4l is in 14 and...) and a fourth connection of the second cross over line and the second fluid connection line (...4l is between 16b and 4j).
9. In light of the 112(b) rejection of this claim, discussed above, the limitations have been interpreted as best able. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system is arranged separately from, and fluidly connected to, the Xmas [tree] (The claimed "system" appears to require the Xmas tree, as discussed above and the "separately from" limitation does not really make sense within the context of how claim 1 is recited, as also discussed above. Fig 1 shows that the system is "fluidly connected to" the subsea tree 2).
10. The system according to claim 1, wherein the pressure increasing unit is a battery driven pump or a hydraulically driven pump ("hydraulic power unit 24 configured to drive the hydraulic piston 12" - page 9:17-18) and the pressure increasing unit is retrievable (At the level of generality claimed, the prior art hydraulic pump is definitely retrievable from the subsea installation via any number of well known and routine methods, including ROV and other servicing tools / vehicles).
11. The system, according to claim 1, wherein the fluid supply ("hydraulic power unit 24" - fig 2) for the pressure increasing unit comes from the main injection line (as discussed for claim 1 above, the "main injection line" can be drawn to either of: lines 6a & 3 in fig 1; the fluid lines in "hydraulic power unit 24" in fig 2. "Production cross 7" extends from both. Therefore, for the purposes of claim 11, the "main injection line" is drawn to the fluid lines in hydraulic power unit 24).
12. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a storage for carbon dioxide ("a gas injection well (e.g. a CO2 injection well)" - page 2:36. In such a case, the "storage for carbon dioxide" is drawn to the wellbore itself into which the CO2 is "injected". The examiner respectfully asserts this is a reasonable interpretation of the claim given the level of broadness).
Independent claim 13. Stokke discloses a method for barrier testing (title; "It is important to regularly test the operation of the valves in the tree to detect any leakages or failures of the valves. Various testing sequences are carried out to sequentially test each valve in the tree. In order to test whether a valve is operating correctly, a pressure differential is created across the valve, typically in the region of 30 to 70 bar, and the valve is examined for fluid leakage" - page 1:14-18. "valve testing operations can be performed using the system 1 to test the operation of one or more of the valves 4a-4m" - page 11:1-5) of a[n] Xmas tree injection system ("system 1 comprises a subsea tree 2" - page 8:20), the Xmas tree being subsea (ibid) and comprising a fluid line (fluid line which define "annular cross 5" - fig 1 & page 8:33-35) between a set of two or more barrier valves (valves 4a & 4c), one of the barrier valves of the set of two barrier valves being an upstream barrier valve closer to a reservoir (4a is closer to the wellbore: fig 1) and the other barrier valve being a downstream valve closer to an environment (4c is closer to the surface), and at least one pressure monitoring device in each of the fluid line ("A second pressure sensor 20b is arranged to measure the pressure of the annular cross 5") and downstream of the downstream barrier valve (20a, 20c, and 20d are all "downstream" of 4C depending on the direction of flow), the method comprising:
closing the downstream barrier valve and the upstream barrier valve ("the valve configuration of the subsea tree 2 is as shown in Figure 3, with the open valves being represented with a hollow valve symbol and the closed valves being represented with a solid valve symbol" - col 11:9-18);
increasing pressure, or decreasing pressure ("Next, the isolatable region 54 is depressurised according to the following steps. The service line valves 16a, 16b, 16c should be closed at this stage. The SIV 41 is opened such that fluid can flow from the isolatable region 54 into the service line 14 to bleed off pressure from (i.e. depressurise) the isolatable region 54. This begins to achieve a pressure differential across the AMV 4a. If the pressure differential at this point is less than a target pressure differential of 30-70 bar, then the hydraulic piston 12 is operated as follows." - page 11:23-28. "fluid from the isolatable region 54 is sucked into the working chamber 26 via the service line 14, thereby depressurising the isolatable region 54" - page 12:1-3), in [the] fluid line (ibid) between the downstream barrier valve and the upstream barrier valve (fig 3) using a pressure increasing unit ("hydraulic piston 12" - ¶ bridging pages 11 & 12), the pressure increasing unit using fluid from a main injection line (drawn to the lines in "hydraulic power unit 24" that is "configured to drive the hydraulic piston 12" - page 9:17-18);
keeping the increased pressure, or the decreased pressure, for a predetermined time period ("The pressure in the isolatable region 54, as measured by pressure sensor 20b, is then monitored for 10 minutes, although other time periods may be used as set out in the relevant testing standards for the particular design of AMV 4a to be tested. The results are documented and the AMV 4a is determined to be operating correctly or incorrectly according to the results of the monitoring" - page 12:6-10); and
checking at least one of [the] pressure monitoring devices to detect pressure changes (ibid).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13-15 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0109683 (Moe). The examiner notes that Moe has an earliest effective filing date of April 28, 2022 to Norway application NO 20220478 A1 (a copy of which is also included). Moe also does not share any inventors nor Applicant with the present case, and is therefore available under 102(a)(2) under the AIA .
MPEP 2151, second paragraph: "The AIA defines the term "effective filing date" for a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent (other than a reissue application or reissued patent) in 35 U.S.C. 100(i)(1) as meaning the earlier of: (1) The actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing the claimed invention; or (2) the filing date of the earliest provisional, nonprovisional, international (PCT), or foreign patent application to which the patent or application is entitled to benefit or priority as to such claimed invention."
Independent claim 1. Moe discloses a system for barrier testing (title) of an Xmas tree injection system (abstract), the Xmas tree being subsea (¶ 24) and comprising a fluid line ("fluid line 330" - ¶ 25) between a set of two or more barrier valves ("a set of two barrier valves (310,320)" - ¶ 25), one of the barrier valves of the set of two barrier valves being an upstream barrier valve closer to a reservoir ("One of the barrier valves of the set of two barrier valves being an upstream barrier valve (320) closer to a reservoir (400)" - ¶ 25...) and the other barrier valve being a downstream barrier valve closer to an environment ("...and the other barrier valve being a downstream barrier valve (310) closer to an environment" - ¶ 25), and at least one pressure monitoring devices in each of the fluid line and downstream of the downstream barrier valve ("The X-mas tree also comprises pressure monitoring devices (180, 380) in the fluid line (330) and downstream of the downstream barrier valve (310)." - ¶ 25) the system comprising:
a first fluid connection line ("The system comprises a first fluid connection line (101)..." - ¶ 26) from a main injection line ("...from a fluid source (200)..." - ibid) to a pressure increasing unit ("...to a pressure increasing unit (160)" - ibid), with one or more valves positioned in the first connection line ("a first valve (110) positioned in the first fluid connection line (101)" -ibid); and
a second fluid connection line ("a second fluid connection line (102)..." - ¶ 27) from the pressure increasing unit (fig 1) to a first connection point on the fluid line between the downstream barrier valve and the upstream barrier valve (fig 1; "The first connection point (332) is on the fluid line (330) between the downstream barrier valve (310) and the upstream barrier valve (320)." - ¶ 27), with one or more valves positioned in the second control line ("a second valve (120) positioned in the second fluid connection line (102)" - ibid),
wherein the system is configured to provide fluid at different test pressures to the fluid line between the downstream barrier valve and the upstream barrier valve ("The system provides fluid at different test pressures to the fluid line (330) between the downstream barrier valve (310) and the upstream barrier valve (320)" - ¶ 25).
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the main injection line is a carbon dioxide injection line (As discussed in the 112(b) rejection of claim 2 above, this does not appear to further structurally define the line in a definite manner. The present "main injection line" is drawn to "fluid source (200)". "Fluid" encompasses both liquid and gas, both of which CO2 exists as, and can be injected as. The examiner contrasts present claim 2 to present claim 12, which Moe does not anticipate under 102).
3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the main injection line (fluid source 200) is the only available pressure line subsea (In light of the 112(b) rejection of this limitation above, the examiner respectfully asserts that "fluid source 200" is the "only available pressure line subsea" because "production flow line 250" is only discussed as being drained, and is never "available" for operating the system as taught - ¶ 33. If Applicant wishes to exclude other wellhead connections in some form, the examiner is open to finding more clear language to do so).
4 and 5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the pressure increasing unite ("pressure increasing unit 160") comprises a pump (", the pressure increasing unit (160) may comprise a pump (160) for pumping fluid in only one direction from the pump towards the second valve (120)" - ¶ 31) for pumping fluid either to or from the fluid line ("either" in the claim renders this an alternative limitation and Moe does one of them. If Applicant wishes to require both / reversibility, the phrase "for reversibly pumping fluid both to and from" is suggested) / is an intensifier ("or be a pressure intensifier" - ¶ 31).
6. The system according to claim 1, further comprising a first cross over line ("fourth fluid connection line 104" - fig 1) bypassing the pressure increasing unit (104 clearly bypassed 160 - fig 1), the cross over line connecting the first fluid connection line and the second fluid connection line (104 clearly connects 101 & 102 via connections 112 & 122 - fig 1).
8. The system according to claim 1, further comprising one or more filters positioned in one or both of the two connection lines (" a filter (190) positioned in the first fluid connection line (101)" - ¶ 34).
9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system is arranged separately from, and fluidly connected to, the Xmas [tree] ("The system may be arranged separately from, and fluidly connected to, the X-mas tree production system" - ¶ 13).
10. The system according to claim 1, wherein the pressure increasing unit is a battery driven pump, or a hydraulically driven pump, and the pressure increasing unit is retrievable ("the pressure increasing unit may be a battery driven pump, or a hydraulically driven pump, and the pressure increasing unit is retrievable" - ¶ 14).
11. The system, according the claim 1, wherein the fluid supply comes from the main injection line ("fluid supply 200" is drawn to the present "main injection line". Differences in nomenclature do not automatically equate to differences in structure or function).
Independent claim 13. Moe discloses a method for barrier testing (title) of a[n] Xmas tree injection system (abstract), the Xmas tree being subsea (as described for claim 1 above) and comprising a fluid line (330 as described for claim 1 above) between a set of two or more barrier valves (310 & 320 - ibid), one of the barrier valves of the set of two barrier valves being an upstream barrier valve closer to a reservoir (fig 1 - ibid) and the other barrier valve being a downstream valve closer to an environment (ibid), and at least one pressure monitoring device in each of the fluid line and downstream of the downstream barrier valve ("The X-mas tree also comprises pressure monitoring devices (180, 380) in the fluid line (330) and downstream of the downstream barrier valve (310)." - ¶ 25), the method comprising:
closing the downstream barrier valve and the upstream barrier valve ("The system is arranged such that fluid at the different test pressures may be provided to the fluid line (330) between the barrier valves (310, 320) for testing of the barrier valves... With the system, test pressures may be set different, higher or lower, than the well, the reservoir (400), the shut-in pressure. This creates a differential pressure that would decay if the barrier valves are not intact" - ¶ 29 - which reasonably & inherently requires closing them as PHOSITA would understand. "The test pressure is then held at this level and since the downstream barrier valve (310) and the upstream barrier valve (320) are closed, a change, for example a decrease, in the pressure level detected by the pressure monitoring device (380) indicates that the barrier valves are not intact" - ¶ 43. "The test pressure is then held at this level and since the downstream barrier valve (310) and the upstream barrier valve (320) are closed, a change, for example an increase, in the pressure level detected by the pressure monitoring device (380) indicates that the barrier valve are not intact" - ¶ 44. "close the master valve (320)... close the downstream barrier valve (310)" - ¶ 45);
increasing pressure, or decreasing pressure (" use the pressure increasing unit (160) to increase the fluid test pressure to the desired barrier test pressure value" - ¶ 45), in [the] fluid line (330) between the downstream barrier valve and the upstream barrier valve (fig 1) using a pressure increasing unit ("pressure increasing unit (160)" - ibid), the pressure increasing unit using fluid from a main injection line ("fluid source 200" - ¶ 24);
keeping the increased pressure, or the decreased pressure, for a predetermined time period ("keep the pressure for a predetermined time period and check the pressure monitoring devices in the fluid line to detect pressure changes" - ¶ 17); and
checking at least one of [the] pressure monitoring devices to detect pressure changes (ibid).
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, 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(s) 14, 15, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0109683 (Moe).
Claim 14. Moe clearly teaches all the limitations of the parent claim. Moe further discloses the method according to claim 13 when testing with a test pressure above a pressure of the reservoir ("for testing with a test pressure above a pressure of the reservoir (400)" - ¶ 43), the method further comprising:
opening one or more valves ("The method comprises to open the first valve (110)..." - ¶ 43) positioned in a first connection line ("a first fluid connection line (101)" - ¶ 26 & fig 1), the first connection line coupled to the main injection line (200) and the pressure increasing unit (160);
opening one or more valves ("The method comprises to open the first valve (110), open the second valve (120)..." - ¶ 43) positioned in a second fluid connection line (102 - fig 1), the second fluid connection line coupled to the pressure increasing unit and the fluid line (fig 1);
closing a crossover valve ("close the fourth valve (140)" - ¶ 43) positioned in a cross over line (line 104 - fig 1) that bypasses the pressure increasing unit and connects the first fluid connection line and the second fluid connection line (fig 1 and as described for other claims above); and
using the pressure increasing unit to increase a fluid test pressure in the fluid line to a desires barrier test pressure value using fluid from the injection line ("and use the pressure increasing unit (160) to increase the fluid test pressure in the fluid line (330) to the desired barrier test pressure value, using fluid from the first source (200)" - ¶ 43).
Moe does not explicitly teach a second cross over line with a valve in it. However, as currently claimed, the present "second cross over valve positioned in a second cross over line" is merely a duplication of both the present "first" cross over and Moe's cross over line 104 & valve 140.
The examiner respectfully asserts it would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of the present filing to duplicate the cross over line and valve of Moe. This duplication as claimed provides all the same features in the same way and is used for the same reasons as in Moe, and such mere duplication is a precedentially held rationale for a holding of obviousness. MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI(B).
The examiner acknowledges that present figure 1 discloses a different final arrangement, but this is not in claims 14, 15, & 17 right now. And, given the conspicuous overlap between the present disclosure and Moe, as cited above, the examiner respectfully notes it would be improper to try and import such structure into the claims where not required. In other words, the structure of the second cross-over line disclosed in present figure 1 is not mere duplication of parts, but the claimed second cross-over is. The claims, and their cross-over line & valve, are otherwise disclosed almost in ipsis verbis by Moe, which the examiner respectfully asserts PHOSIA would also readily appreciate.
15. The method according to claim 13, when barrier testing a master valve ("a method for barrier testing a master valve 320..." - ¶ 45) the master valve being the upstream barrier valve ("the master valve is the upstream barrier valve (320)" - ibid), the method further comprises:
closing the master valve ("The method comprises closing the master valve" - ibid);
opening the one or more valves ("open the first valve (110)..." - ¶ 45) positioned in the first connection line (in line 101 - fig 1);
opening the one or more valves ("...open the second valve (120)" - ¶ 45) positioned in the second fluid connection line (in line 102 - fig 1);
closing a crossover valve ("close the fourth valve (140)" - ¶ 45) positioned in a first crossover line (104 - fig 1) that bypasses the pressure increasing unit and connects the first fluid connection and the second connection line (ibid & as cited above);
using the pressure increasing unit to increase the fluid test pressure in the fluid line to a desired barrier test pressure value for the master valve ("use the pressure increasing unit (160) to increase the fluid test pressure to the desired barrier test pressure value for the master valve (320)" - ¶ 45);
keeping the fluid test pressure for a predetermined time period ("Then keep the pressure for a predetermined time period and check the pressure monitoring devices (380) in the fluid line (330) to detect pressure changes during the predetermined time period." - ¶ 45); and
checking the pressure monitoring devices in the fluid line to detect pressure changes (ibid).
Claim 15 is similar to claim 14 in that Moe discloses the entire claim, almost in ipsis verbis, but only discloses cross-over line & valve. Claim 15 also is a mere duplication of Moe's cross-over line, and is held as obvious as similarly discussed for claim 14 above, not repeated again in full here.
17. In light of the 112(b) rejections of claim 16, the limitations have been interpreted as best able. The method according to claim 13, when testing a wing valve ("the method may include testing a wing valve (310)" - ¶ 46), the wing valve being the downstream barrier valve ("the wing valve is the downstream barrier valve (310)" - ibid), the method further comprising:
closing the wing valve ("The method comprises close the wing valve (310)..." - ibid);
opening one or more valves ("...open the first valve (110)" - ibid) positioned in the first connection line (101, fig 1);
opening one or more valves ("...open the second valve (120)" - ibid) positioned in the second fluid connection line (102, fig 1);
closing the crossover valve ("...close the fourth valve (140)" - ibid), positioned in a first cross over line (104 - fig 1) that bypasses the pressure increasing unit (160) and connects the first fluid connection line (101) and the second connection line (102);
using the pressure increasing unit (160) to increase a fluid test pressure in the fluid line to a desired barrier test pressure value for the wing valve (); keeping the fluid test pressure for a predetermined time period; and
checking the pressure monitoring devices in the fluid line to detect pressure changes (" use the pressure increasing unit (160) to increase the fluid test pressure to the desired barrier test pressure value for the wing valve (310). Then keep the pressure for a predetermined time period and check the pressure monitoring devices (380) in the fluid line (330) to detect pressure changes during the predetermined time period " - ¶ 46).
Claim 16 is similar to claim 14 in that Moe discloses the entire claim, almost in ipsis verbis, but only discloses cross-over line & valve. Claim 16 also is a mere duplication of Moe's cross-over line, and is held as obvious as similarly discussed for claim 14 above, not repeated again in full here.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that no prior art rejections are presented for claim 16. However given the relatively substantial 112(b) issues with the claim, it can not be indicated as allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
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.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights