IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Ian Donald, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,066,076 Attorney Docket No.: 29188-0022IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`November 29, 2011
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/590,563
`Filing Date:
`December 13, 2007
`Title:
`CONNECTION SYSTEM FOR SUBSEA FLOW
`INTERFACE EQUIPMENT
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT HERRMANN
`
`I.
`
`Personal Work Experience and Awards
`
`1. My name is Robert P. Herrmann. I am currently an industry
`
`consultant in the field of offshore oil operations and a Licensed Professional
`
`Engineer. In addition to the below summary, a copy of my current curriculum vitae
`
`more fully setting forth my experiences and qualifications is submitted herewith as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`I have more than 42 years of professional experience in Mechanical
`
`Engineering, particularly in the area of offshore oil operations. I received a B.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Houston in 1972 and a M.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Houston in 1973. Further, I have
`
`authored numerous published technical papers, delivered lectures and moderated
`
`professional conferences in the area of offshore oil operations. In 2015, I was
`
`inducted into the Ocean Energy Offshore Hall of Fame.
`
`1
`
`FMC 1003
`
`
`
`Ian Donald, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,066,076 Attorney Docket No.: 29188-0022IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`November 29, 2011
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/590,563
`Filing Date:
`December 13, 2007
`Title:
`CONNECTION SYSTEM FOR SUBSEA FLOW
`INTERFACE EQUIPMENT
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT HERRMANN
`
`I.
`
`Personal Work Experience and Awards
`
`1. My name is Robert P. Herrmann. I am currently an industry
`
`consultant in the field of offshore oil operations and a Licensed Professional
`
`Engineer. In addition to the below summary, a copy of my current curriculum vitae
`
`more fully setting forth my experiences and qualifications is submitted herewith as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`I have more than 42 years of professional experience in Mechanical
`
`Engineering, particularly in the area of offshore oil operations. I received a B.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Houston in 1972 and a M.S. in
`
`Mechanical Engineering from the University of Houston in 1973. Further, I have
`
`authored numerous published technical papers, delivered lectures and moderated
`
`professional conferences in the area of offshore oil operations. In 2015, I was
`
`inducted into the Ocean Energy Offshore Hall of Fame.
`
`1
`
`FMC 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`From 1973-1990, I held various positions with Sonat Offshore
`
`Drilling, working on several deep water design projects including all aspects of
`
`offshore oil operations. From 1973-1976, I was Project Manager for the design and
`
`construction of the Discoverer Seven Seas deep water drillship. From 1976 to
`
`1977, I was Technical Supervisor, managing operation of a dynamically positioned
`
`drillship, identifying and developing solutions to technical issues. From 1977 to
`
`1979, I was Engineering Manager and Managing Director for Sonat’s foreign
`
`branch. From 1979 to 1984, I was Division Manager, Discoverer Seven Seas,
`
`managing all aspects of offshore operations for a dynamically positioned drilling
`
`vessel, including developing new operations and techniques to improve
`
`performance and efficiency in deepwater operations. From 1984 to 1985, I was
`
`Operations Manager-Contracts, providing technical and operational input for all
`
`project bids. From 1985 to 1988, I was Senior Contracts and Sales Representative,
`
`directing engineering, planning and supervision of offshore operation for various
`
`deepwater installations. From 1989 to 1990, I was International Contracts & Sales
`
`Manager, managing bids internationally.
`
`4.
`
`In 1991, I served as a consultant to Conoco, Wilrig, Huthnance and
`
`Odfjell in the area of offshore oil operations.
`
`5.
`
`From 1991 to 1993 I was General Manager at Wilrig, running a two
`
`rig deep water drilling operation off Brazil.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`From 1993 to 2015, I served as a Consult in the field of offshore oil
`
`operations to a number of companies including BPAmoco, Transocean, Repsol,
`
`Encana, Petrobras, Japan Drilling Co. and Cobalt International, providing expertise
`
`in areas such as flow assurance and field development concepts, running flowlines
`
`and other subsea equipment from drillships, drillship design, field development,
`
`well extension, and subsea tree and jumper design, installation and operation.
`
`7.
`
`In 1990, I served as an expert witness in a dispute involving
`
`ConocoPhillips and Reading & Bates Corporation in the field of offshore oil
`
`operations.
`
`8.
`
`Throughout my career, I have been actively involved in numerous
`
`professional organizations. I was the Session Chairman/Session Moderator for the
`
`Deep Ocean Technology Conferences in Spain (1981), Malta (1983), Italy (1985),
`
`and Monaco (1987). I was a member of the American Bureau of Shipping British
`
`Technical Committee and United States Congressional Committee of the Office of
`
`Technology Assessment - Subcommittee for Deepwater Drilling Evaluation.
`
`9.
`
`Based on my above-described 42 years of experience in Mechanical
`
`Engineering in the area of offshore oil operations, and the acceptance of my
`
`publications and professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I
`
`am considered to be an expert in the field of offshore oil operations.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`10.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the field of offshore
`
`oil operations; my industry experience this field; and my experience in working
`
`with others involved in this field. I have also analyzed the following publications
`
`and materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my declaration:
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 8,066,076 and its accompanying prosecution history (“the
`
`’076 Patent”, Exs. 1001, 1002)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 4,589,493 (“Kelly”, Ex. 1004)
`
` WO 00/47864 (“Andersen”, Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,707 (“Hopper”, Ex. 1006)
`
`11.
`
`I am not currently and have not at any time in the past been an
`
`employee of FMC, Inc. I have been engaged in the present matter to provide my
`
`independent analysis of the issues raised in the petition for inter partes review of
`
`the ’076 Patent. I received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal
`
`hourly compensation based on my time actually spent studying the matter, and my
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of this inter partes review of the
`
`’076 Patent.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12.
`
`I am familiar with the content of the ’076 Patent. Additionally, I have
`
`reviewed the other references cited above in this declaration. Counsel has informed
`
`me that I should consider these materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art related to the ’076 Patent at the time of the invention, which for the
`
`purposes of this analysis I am treating as 2004 (although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even at an earlier time). I believe that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’076 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor
`
`of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering with at least two years of related
`
`work experience in subsea oil and gas production systems. Individuals with
`
`different education and additional experience could still be of ordinary skill in the
`
`art if that additional experience compensates for a deficit in their education stated
`
`above. I base my evaluation of a person of ordinary skill in this art on my own
`
`personal experience, including my knowledge of colleagues and related
`
`professionals at the time of interest.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`13.
`
`I understand that, for the purposes of my analysis in this matter, the
`
`claims of the ‘076 Patent must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification. Stated another way, it is contemplated that the
`
`claims are understood by their broadest reasonable interpretation except where
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`construed in the specification. I also understand that this “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” is with respect to how one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret the claim language. I have followed these principles in my analysis. In a
`
`few instances, I have discussed my understanding of the claims in the relevant
`
`paragraphs below.
`
`V. A production choke is a processing apparatus.
`
`14. A choke is a type of valve that controls fluid flow by constricting a
`
`flow area. Kelly’s choke, for example, constricts the flow area between a valve
`
`member 80 and a valve seat 78. Kelly at 1:43-54; 2:66-3:9; 3:13-19. Thus, the
`
`valve member 80 of the subsea choke assembly 26 is adjustable to control the flow
`
`area available to the fluid flow, and therefore affect the pressure and flow rate of
`
`production fluids. Thus, a choke can be considered a pressure regulation
`
`apparatus. As such, Kelly’s subsea choke assembly 26 is a “processing apparatus,”
`
`because it processes fluid by affecting (e.g., reducing) fluid flow rate and pressure.
`
`Indeed, chokes are routinely used to reduce the pressure of the fluids produced
`
`from a high pressure well. Additionally, Kelly’s choke acts as a gas separator,
`
`which is a form of fluid processing. Kelly concerns producing oil and gas. Oil or
`
`gas produced from the Earth is multiphase, i.e., liquid and gas. The pressure and
`
`temperature change experienced by the multiphase fluid passing through the choke
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`flashes the fluid, changing the ratio of liquid to gas. This phase change caused by
`
`the choke is an additional form of processing.
`
`VI. A flow spool is a type of production tree
`
`15. Andersen described various types of wellhead structures – some of
`
`which, in my opinion, are production trees even though Andersen does not call
`
`them trees. For example, with reference to Figure 2b, Andersen described that the
`
`wellhead 10 may include, rather than a unitary construction, a separate flow spool
`
`72 secured to a lower part 74 of the wellhead by a connector 76. Andersen at
`
`12:10-12. Like a production tree, the flow spool 72 carries the various conduits
`
`(e.g., conduits 30, 38, and 50) and valves (e.g., valves 78 and 80) used to control
`
`the flow of formation fluid produced from the well. Andersen at 12:12-24; and
`
`10:11-31.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, the person of ordinary skill in the art would consider
`
`the flow spool 72 together with the flow control package 82, to be a “production
`
`tree,” with the flow spool 72 providing the “body” of the tree. As I noted above,
`
`Andersen refers to the flow spool 72 as part of a “wellhead,” but this choice of
`
`labeling is merely semantics. For example, in other locations, Andersen refers to
`
`“a christmas tree forming part of the main wellhead” and notes that the flow spool
`
`72 includes a “tree cap.” Andersen at 4:19-22 and 10:27-31; 11:23-24; 12:26-27.
`
`The component ostensibly labeled as a “wellhead” is clearly described as having
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`the exact characteristics of a tree – namely, the production and annulus branches
`
`together with corresponding valves to control flow from the well. Indeed, the flow
`
`spool 72 is shown in Figure 2b mounted to a casinghead (that is, the “conductor
`
`casing 14”), and including a production valve 78 located in a production wing
`
`branch (that is, the “production fluid conduit 30”) and an annulus valve 80 located
`
`in an annulus wing branch (that is, the “annulus conduit 38”). Indeed, the flow
`
`spool 72 even includes a tubing hanger 22 for suspending a tubing string defining
`
`the main production tubing, such as one would expect to find in a production tree
`
`(specifically, a horizontal tree or a “spool” tree). Thus, I believe that the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would view the flow spool 72 of Andersen as a tree, and in
`
`particular, a horizontal tree, sitting atop a wellhead. Hopper, discussed below, is
`
`another example of a horizontal or spool tree functionally equivalent in many
`
`respects to Andersen’s flow spool 72. The term “horizontal tree” is an industry
`
`term used when one is referring to a tree configuration where the flow control
`
`valves are installed on a horizontal axis – e.g., within the production and annulus
`
`wing branches.. The flow spool 72 described by Andersen provides exactly this
`
`type of configuration, and therefore forms part of a production tree assembly.
`
`Moreover, when the flow control package 82 is coupled to the flow spool 72, it is
`
`even clearer to the person of ordinary skill that the combination of these
`
`components constitutes a production tree. Andersen corroborates this opinion by
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`expressly stating that “[t]he flow control package performs at least some of the
`
`functions of the Christmas tree in prior art completions.” Andersen at 4:15-16.
`
`VII. Kelly
`
`17. Kelly described a “subsea wellhead production apparatus” including a
`
`retrievable subsea choke.” Kelly at Abstract. The choke is landable on and
`
`retrievable from subsea wellhead equipment, including a Christmas tree 18. Kelly
`
`at 1:60-65; and 2:21-22. While referenced generically as a “subsea wellhead
`
`production apparatus” or “subsea wellhead equipment 10,” one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the entire subsea wellhead production
`
`apparatus/equipment 10 as being a subsea production tree assembly, in part
`
`because the Christmas tree 18 and the additional components shown in Kelly’s
`
`FIG. 1 are landable and retrievable on the casing 12 as a unit and together
`
`cooperate in connecting the well to the production flowline. Kelly 2:16-33. Thus,
`
`the Christmas tree, together with associated components, can be called a
`
`“production tree” assembly and typically includes a production branch and an
`
`annulus branch placed in fluid communication with the well bore through a main
`
`production bore. The tubing defining the production and annulus branches of
`
`Kelly’s tree are unnumbered, but shown with annulus extending left to and
`
`production to the right in FIG. 2. The figures of Kelly show a subsea choke
`
`assembly 26 on the production branch. The production and annulus branches are
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`called “branches,” because they are like the branches of a tree that branch out from
`
`its trunk. Here, the trunk of Kelly’s Christmas tree 18 has a production bore, and
`
`the production and annulus branches extend outward from respective laterally
`
`oriented ports of the bore.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In operation, fluids flow upwardly from the well through the well
`
`casing 12, into the vertical production bore of the Christmas tree 18, laterally out
`
`through a horizontal bore branching from the Christmas tree 18, and into the line
`
`20 and the collet body 22. Kelly at 2:22-27. The line 20 and the collet body 22 are
`
`connected at a fluid port (see Figure 1, where the line 20 meets the collet body 22).
`
`The fluid port connecting the line 20 and the collet body 22 is offset laterally from
`
`the central trunk of the tree 18. Further, the fluid port “extends” from the
`
`production bore to a corresponding passage 64 of the collet body 22 (see Figure 3),
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`because it is maintained in fluid
`
`communication with the production
`
`bore by the intermediate horizontal
`
`bore and line 20. In Kelly’s
`
`apparatus, the flow of fluids is
`
`turned by the bend in the line 20 and
`
`directed by the passage 64 of the
`
`collet body 22 to flow into the
`
`subsea choke assembly 26. Fluids
`
`exiting the subsea choke assembly
`
`26 are returned by the passage 66 of
`
`the collet body 22 to the branch at the line 24. As shown in Kelly’s Figure 3, the
`
`passages 64 and 66 extend vertically upward and downward through the structure
`
`of the collet body 22, and therefore provide upwardly and downwardly facing
`
`vertical bores. Fluids flowing through the branch are directed away from the
`
`branch by the line 20 and the collet body 22, such that the fluids must pass through
`
`the subsea choke assembly 26, before fluids are returned to the branch at the line
`
`24. The line 20 and the collet body 22 are directly coupled to the Christmas tree
`
`18 and the line 24. Together, the structural components of the Christmas tree 18,
`
`the line 20, the collet body 22, and the line 24 could be characterized as the
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed “body” of a production tree assembly. Notably, the collet body 22 serves
`
`as a connecting point on the wing branch of the production tree for routing fluid to
`
`the choke assembly 26.
`
`19. Production and annulus branches are also commonly referred to as
`
`“wings,” because they extend out to the side like a wing of a bird. Here, Kelly’s
`
`production wing branch includes a sub-assembly of wing components that form a
`
`continuous flowpath for conveying fluid. The sub-assembly of wing components
`
`includes the line 20, the collet body 22 and the line 24. The collet body 22 is a
`
`solid, unitary structure that could be characterized as a block. Clearly, it is located
`
`on the “wing” of the production tree.
`
`20. Kelly described that the choke assembly 26 includes a choke body 30
`
`controlled by a choke actuator 36. Kelly at 2:34-37. The choke assembly 26 has a
`
`remotely controlled collet connector 28 with flange 32. Kelly at 2:34-37. These
`
`components are connected together as “skid” (as the term is used in 076) to the
`
`same extent that components in the ‘076 Patent form a skid. Further, as shown in
`
`Kelly’s Figure 3, the choke assembly’s collet flange 32 is supported by a portion of
`
`the production tree’s wing branch – namely, the collet body 22.
`
`21. Kelly’s collet connector 28 couples the collet body 22 to the choke
`
`assembly 26. Kelly at 2:26-29. More specifically, Kelly described that the collet
`
`connector 28 includes a plate 42 secured to the choke body 30 that supports one or
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`more actuators 46. Kelly at 2 39-43. The actuators 46 move a cam sleeve 48 to
`
`cause locking elements 50 to engage the respective flanges 32 and 40 of the collet
`
`body 22 and the choke assembly 26. Kelly at 2 39-43. In Kelly’s apparatus, the
`
`collet connector 28 provides a “frame” of the “utility skid,” and item 42 thereof is
`
`a “body” of that frame.
`
`22. As shown in Kelly’s Figure 3, the choke body 30 includes an inlet 68
`
`extending to a passage 74, which leads to a valve chamber 76 via an elbow passage
`
`94. Kelly at 2:66 to 3:1. The choke body 30 further includes an outlet 70
`
`extending away from the valve chamber 76. Kelly at 2:66 to 3:1. When the choke
`
`body 30 has been landed on the collet body 22, the collet body passage 64 is
`
`aligned with the choke body inlet 68 and the collet body passage 66 is aligned with
`
`the choke body outlet 70. Kelly at 2:61-63. The choke body inlet 68 and outlet 70
`
`are aligned in a manner that permits fluid flow between them. The “sealing
`
`means” shown in Kelly’s Figure 3 as unnumbered items below reference numbers
`
`68 and 70, as well as the sleeve 84 residing in the interior of the passages 64 and
`
`66, are physically received in the upwardly facing vertical bores of these passages.
`
`Kelly at 2:61-65 and 3:9-11. Notably, in connections of this type, the seals are
`
`attached to and retrievable with the retrievable component to allow easy
`
`replacement of the seals at the surface when the retrievable component has been
`
`retrieved.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`23. The elbow passage 94, the passage 74, and valve chamber 76 form a
`
`continuous flowpath for conveying production fluid received from the collet body
`
`22 through the choke body 30. Thus, this flowpath permits fluid flow between the
`
`production bore of the production tree, the processing apparatus (i.e., the choke
`
`assembly 26, as I previously discussed), and the collet body 22. The conduit
`
`forming the choke body inlet 68 routes production fluid from a first flowpath
`
`through the production tree (which I previously discussed) to a second flowpath
`
`through the choke body 30 (including the elbow passage 94, the passage 74, and
`
`valve chamber 76).
`
`24. Kelly described that the subsea choke assembly 26 is landed on the
`
`collet body 22. Kelly at 1:61-65 and 2:61-65. This means that the subsea choke
`
`assembly 26 can be lowered subsea, for example on a cable, to connect with the
`
`collet body 22. Because it is dangerous, and at certain depths – impossible, to have
`
`divers, the connection is done remotely (see, e.g., Kelly’s “remotely controlled”
`
`connector 16), assisted by remote operated vehicles (ROVs) controlled from the
`
`surface. Because of the precision required to align the passages 68 and 70 in the
`
`choke assembly 26 with those in the collet body 22, passages 64 and 66, an
`
`orienting means 52 is provided on the collet body 22 to enable alignment of the
`
`choke body 30 and the collet body 22 when the choke assembly 26 is landed.
`
`Kelly at 2:47-48 and claim 6. The orienting means includes a plate 54 having an
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`upstanding annular collar 56 secured around the collet body 22. Kelly at 2:49-51.
`
`The upstanding annular collar 56 is shown in Figure 3 closely receiving the
`
`exterior of the choke body’s collet connector 28, so as to align the collet connector
`
`28 with the collet body 22. A mule shoe 58 is secured around the interior of the
`
`collar 56 and engages an orienting key 62 of the choke body’s collet connector 28
`
`to orient the choke assembly 26. Kelly at 2:52-57. Kelly’s Figure 3 also illustrates
`
`a downwardly facing alignment cone disposed on the collet connector 28 that the
`
`upstanding annular collar 56 contacts while guiding the collet connector 28 into the
`
`interior of the orienting means 52. As I previously noted, the collet body 22 is a
`
`component of the production tree – namely, part of the wing sub-assembly (or
`
`“wing branch” or “production branch” – these terms are used interchangeably in
`
`practice) of the tree.
`
`25. The orienting means 52 (including the mule shoe 58) shown and
`
`described by Kelly are provided to facilitate guided alignment of the collet body 22
`
`(part of the tree) with a body 30 of the choke assembly 26, as the assembly is
`
`lowered, landed and installed. Kelly at 1:63-65 and 2:47-48. As such, one of skill
`
`in the art would understand the orienting means to be a “tree guide;” and one of
`
`skill in the art would understand the orienting key 62, and/or the alignment cone,
`
`and/or the outer diameter of the collet connector 28 together or separately to be an
`
`“aligning member” (or a “skid guide”) that engages the “tree guide” to align the
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`choke assembly 26 with respect to one or more components of the production tree
`
`(e.g., the collet body 22).
`
`26. As I previously mentioned, a choke is a type of valve that controls
`
`flow by constricting a flow area. Kelly’s choke, for example, constricts flow
`
`between a valve member 80 and a valve seat 78. Kelly at 1:43-54; 2:66-3:9; 3:13-
`
`19. In other words, the valve member 80 of the subsea choke assembly 26 is
`
`adjustable to control the fluid flow and pressure of the production fluids. As such,
`
`Kelly’s subsea choke assembly 26 is a processing apparatus, because it processes
`
`fluid by reducing fluid flow and pressure. Additionally, Kelly’s choke processes
`
`fluid by operating as a gas separator. Chokes are used to reduce the pressure of the
`
`high pressure fluids produced from the well. Kelly concerns oil and gas, where the
`
`fluids are multiphase, i.e., liquid and gas, and include water, oil and natural gas.
`
`The pressure and temperature change experienced by the fluid passing through the
`
`choke flashes the fluid and changes the ratio of liquid to gas. Also, because the
`
`fluid received into Kelly’s choke passes near the fluid leaving the choke, the higher
`
`temperature fluid entering the choke heats the fluid exiting the choke, which has
`
`been flashed and is at a lower temperature. Changing the gas to liquid ratio and
`
`heating the fluid are, in my opinion, processing the fluid.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. Kelly and Andersen
`
`27. As previously discussed, the Christmas tree 18 described by Kelly is
`
`coupled to the well casing 12, and therefore receives production fluid from the well
`
`into a production bore. Kelly at 2:21-22. A port diverging laterally from the
`
`production bore of the tree leads to a sub-assembly of wing branch components,
`
`forming a flowpath for conveying fluid. These wing components of the tree
`
`include a line 20 that turns the fluid flow along a bend and directs the flow to a
`
`fluid port leading to the collet body 22. Kelly at 2:22-25; see also Fig. 1. The
`
`collet body 22 is unitary structure that a person of ordinary skill would consider as
`
`being a “block.”
`
`28. Similar to Kelly, Andersen described “a subsea completion” including
`
`“a wellhead” and “a flow control package removably located externally of the
`
`wellhead.” Andersen at 4:6-8 and 16:10-17. In fact, the system described by
`
`Andersen is designed to function very similarly to Kelly’s. The flow control
`
`package may include various valves and a production choke, as well as any other
`
`processing equipment needed to control or monitor flowing production fluid.
`
`Andersen at 5:29 to 6:9. Like Kelly’s choke assembly 26, the flow control
`
`package 83 carrying the production choke is structurally integrated into the subsea
`
`system between an upstream production line leading from the main bore of the tree
`
`and a downstream flowline. Andersen described that the flow control package is
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`coupled to the wellhead via a “hub connector 34.” Andersen at 5:10-12; 10:9-15;
`
`11:20-21; 13:3-4. Like Kelly’s collet body 22, Andersen’s hub connector 34 is a
`
`unitary structure that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be a
`
`“block.” Further, like the collet body 22, the hub connector 34 provides a
`
`connection point between a subsea tree and an independently retrievable module
`
`that is laterally offset from the main production bore of the tree. These similarities
`
`in configuration are immediately evident from a mere visual inspection of
`
`Andersen’s Figure 17 and Kelly’s Figure 1, and further evident from the content of
`
`the accompanying disclosures.
`
`29. The hub connector 34 receives a flow of production fluid from a
`
`production fluid conduit 30 extending through a side wall 32 of the wellhead 10.
`
`Andersen at 10:9-15. As shown in Andersen’s Figure 2b, the hub connector 34 has
`
`a horizontal bore communicating with a laterally oriented port leading to an
`
`upwardly facing vertical bore. Andersen at 5:12-13 and 16:28-30. Such blocks,
`
`that internally turn flow, were fabricated (e.g., typically machined from a forged
`
`block) as a robust unitary construction and therefore are stronger and more
`
`compact than an equivalent bend fabricated from pipe. Generally, the bend radius
`
`of a pipe bend is limited by the strength of the pipe, as a pipe bent in too tight of a
`
`radius would fail. Thus, pipe bends tend to be large radius, sweeping bends as
`
`shown in FIG. 1 of Kelly. A unitary block structure bored to incorporate a fluid
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`path that turns is not so limited, because the material itself is not being deformed,
`
`but merely cut away. Thus, a block structure like Andersen’s creates a more
`
`compact assembly, because it allows for tighter turns in the fluid path. Further, the
`
`block structure is stronger and more rigid than pipe, because there is excess
`
`material.
`
`30. Here, both Kelly and Andersen disclose a sub-assembly of wing
`
`components including a block for routing fluid to a processing module. . As I
`
`noted previously, Kelly’s apparatus turns the fluid using a pipe bend (line 20),
`
`which is external to collet body 22. Given the similarity between Kelly’s collet
`
`body 22 and Andersen’s hub connector 34, the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have recognized that Kelly’s collet body 22 could be similarly improved by
`
`substituting the pipe bend in the line 20 within the robust unitary block-like
`
`structure of the collet body 22. Indeed, this modification would result in a
`
`predictable improvement of Kelly’s apparatus from a structural perspective, as well
`
`as being more compact. To be clear, employing a block that incorporates a
`
`necessary bend in the flow would be yet another obvious way to improve the
`
`performance of the apparatus described by Kelly, because it would provide a more
`
`structurally sound and compact wing branch.
`
`31. As I previously noted, Andersen’s flow control package may include a
`
`production choke, like Kelly, as well as any other necessary processing equipment.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Andersen at 5:29 to 6:9. With reference to the embodiment of Figure 17, Andersen
`
`described a fluid control package 83 including a production choke 116 and
`
`additional production fluid processing equipment 174 (e.g., gas/water separator
`
`stages, a gas to liquid conversion plant, pumps, etc.). Andersen at 16:12-15.
`
`Andersen also described that the flow control package may include any needed
`
`“flow meters, detectors, [and] sensors.” Andersen at 6:7-9. Such devices were
`
`traditionally used in the art for processing production fluid. Additionally, it was
`
`widely known to be advantageous for subsea chokes and/or other processing
`
`apparatus to include one or more devices to monitor fluid flow (e.g., detectors,
`
`sensors, flow meters, etc.), to enable the subsea choke and/or other processing
`
`apparatuses to be appropriately adjusted. In practice, Kelly’s subsea choke
`
`assembly 26 would have at least included upstream and downstream pressure
`
`sensors (or an equivalent flow-monitoring device) to monitor pressure drop, and
`
`the monitored pressure drop would have been used to determine the flow rate of
`
`production fluids through the assembly. Indeed, such an arrangement is
`
`commonplace in subsea choke devices, as evidenced by Andersen’s teachings.
`
`32. Furthermore, modifying Kelly’s apparatus to include one or more of
`
`the gas/water separator stages, gas to liquid conversion plant, pumps, and/or other
`
`fluid processing devices described by Andersen is nothing more than a
`
`combination of well-known fluid processing components. These components
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`would perform the same function incorporated in Kelly’s apparatus as they do in
`
`Andersen’s. In my opinion, the combination of Kelly’s apparatus with one or more
`
`of Andersen’s processing apparatuses is simply a logical and routine upgrade,
`
`adding predictable functionality, to Kelly’s choke assembly 26. Moreover,
`
`modifying Kelly’s subsea choke assembly by adding one or more of Andersen’s
`
`more exact flow-monitoring devices (e.g., flow meters, detectors, and sensors)
`
`would provide additional information related to fluid flow parameters through the
`
`choke assembly 26 and allow more precise control of Kelly’s valve member 80 to
`
`achieve desired flow characteristics. To be clear, I would expect Kelly’s subsea
`
`choke assembly 26 to, in practice, include at least temperature and pressure
`
`sensors, and including one or more of Andersen's further flow-monitoring devices
`
`would be an obvious way to improve the performance of Kelly’s subsea choke
`
`assembly 26 by generating more accurate flow information, and improving the
`
`precision of the subsea choke assembly 26 in controlling flow and pressure
`
`parameters.
`
`33. Further still, a person of ordinary skill considering the teachings of
`
`Andersen would position the one or more additional devices within the subsea
`
`choke assembly 26 (e.g., instead of elsewhere on Kelly’s subsea production
`
`wellhead apparatus), which is supportable on a frame, in order to facilitate
`
`convenient retrieval of these relatively delicate devices. Indeed, Andersen
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`explained that bundling multiple production fluid processing devices in a single
`
`subsea equipment package is advantageous for various reasons. For example, this
`
`design allows one to design a subsea completion apparatus having a configuration
`
`of fluid processing components that is customized for the requirements of a
`
`particular completion project, and allows such devices to be installed and retrieved
`
`independently of components. Andersen at 4:18-24. Retrieval is important,
`
`because these relatively delicate devices are more prone to fail than most other
`
`components of the tree. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill would likewise
`
`position one or more flow-monitoring devices in the subsea choke assembly 26,
`
`which similarly can be packaged as an
`
`assembly which may be lowered, landed
`
`and installed on a subsea wellhead, and
`
`which also may be independently
`
`retrievable from such subsea wellhead.
`
`Kelly at 1:55-59.
`
`IX. Andersen
`
`34. Andersen described a subsea
`
`system, and in particular, “[an] apparatus
`
`for drilling and completion of subsea wells
`
`for controlling fluid flow . . . and for
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`subsea fluid processing operations.” Andersen at 1:5-7. Andersen’s apparatus
`
`includes a subsea structure the reference generically refers to as a “wellhead” and a
`
`“flow control package” attachable to the wellhead. Andersen at 4:6-13. The flow
`
`control package is a separate component that is removably landable on and
`
`supportable by the wellhead structure. Andersen at 4:6-13. As I previously
`
`discussed, Andersen described various types of wellhead structures – some of
`
`which, in my opinion, are functionally a production tree. For example, with
`
`reference to Figure 2b, Andersen described that the wellhead 10 may include,
`
`rather than a unitary construction, a separate flow spool 72 secured to a lower part
`
`74 of the wellhead by a connector 76. Andersen at 12:10-12. Th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
