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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mechanically actuated gate valve, pressure compensation unit, instrumentation, monitoring system, and multiple quick connector as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The office further notes that none of the specific features recited in claims 2-12 are illustrated in the drawings. These features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 necessitates “a subsea isolation valve”. The metes and bounds of this term are unclear because the claim does not specify whether this is a specific type of valve, a specific assembly or a functional category of valve. Usage of the term is further muddied due to applicant’s usage of ball valve and gate valve within claim 1 which gives the impression that the isolation valve is NOT a ball valve or gate valve.
Claim 1 necessitates “a recoverable electric actuator”. The metes and bounds of this term and unclear and indefinite. “Recoverable electric actuator” is not regarded as a term of art within the actuator or fluid control fields. Accordingly, applicant’s inventive intent behind usage of such term is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 1 necessitates “a pressure compensation unit”. However, neither the claims or specification provide any structure related to said unit or operational relationship between the unit and the remainder of applicant’s invention. Accordingly, it is unclear and indefinite how the pressure compensation is arranged and operated within applicant’s invention as a whole.
Claim 1 necessitates “instrumentation”. The metes and bounds of this term are unclear and indefinite. How is the recited instrumentation distinct from the instruments already recited in the claim.
Claim 1 necessitates “a monitoring system comprising a pressure and temperature transducer anda pressure transducer”. It is unclear and indefinite whether such recitation necessitates two pressure transducers.
Claim 1 necessittes “a multiple quick connector”. The metes and bounds of such term are unclear and indefinite. For example, does such recitation necessitate multiple quick connectors, what does applicant regard as a quick connector, is this a single connector with a plurality of ports, etc.?
Claim 2 necessitates “a ball valve with single and double piston effect seats”. The office is not familiar with the term “piston effect seat” and the specification does not provide any clarity as to the structure of such a seat. Futher, it is unclear and indefinite how a single ball valve includes both types of seats. See also claim 3.
Claim 2 recites, “controlled by hydraulic functions F1 to F4.” It is unclear and indefinite what “functions F1 to F4” are.
Claim 4 recites, “there is a mechanically operated auxiliary valve for testing in the SSIV.” It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant intends to positively recite a mechanically operated auxiliary valve. It is unclear and indefinite how the presence of a valve facilitates testing. Further, it is unclear and indefinite what applicant intends by “SSIV”.
Claim 5 recites that “a rotary overrie being controlled by hydraulic function”. Does this mean that the override may be overridden via hydraulics? See also claim 7
Claim 6, “the first gate valve” lacks antecedent basis.
In regards to claim 6, it is unclear and indefinite how a gate valve communicates with the pressure and temperature transducer.
Claim 9 recites that the “the gate valve and the…ball valve exhibit individual, resident pressure compensation systems.” It is unclear and indefinite what this phrase means.
Claim 10 recites that “the…isolation valve, first gate valve, and second gate valve exhibit a recoverable shared pressure compensation unit.” Again, it is unclear and indefinite what this phrase means.
Claim 12, what are “MGV” and “MBV” valves?
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Examination note: Claim 1 - 12 are replete with indefiniteness related issues. While the office has provided many examples of the issues raised, this list should not be considered exhaustive and applicant is encouraged to provide meaningful amendments to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights