Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,2,4,6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atallah et al. (US 20200055569) in view of EP document (EP 0438258)
Atallah et al. discloses a method (see Figs. 1A-1P, para 0014), comprising the steps of:
a) providing a mooring line assembly (see Figs. 1A-1C), said mooring line assembly comprising a mooring line (701) attached to an anchor (714), said anchor fixed to an ocean floor (718) and said mooring line assembly run out on said ocean floor; said mooring line assembly comprising a top line segment (310) and a mooring line segment (722,724a,724b);
b) connecting an anchor handling vessel (700) to said mooring line, said anchor handling vessel taking on at least a portion of a tension of said mooring line assembly (para 0055);
c) positioning said anchor handling vessel proximal a floating vessel or structure to be moored (see Fig. 1A), connecting said floating vessel or structure (200) to said mooring line (see Fig. 1D), and transferring said portion of said mooring line assembly tension to said floating vessel or structure; and wherein said top line segment (310) comprises the portion of the mooring line assembly closest to said floating vessel or structure (200);
d) moving said anchor handling vessel away from said floating vessel or structure (see Fig. 1D, para 0061; see Figs. 1I, 1K, 1L; para 0065) to be moored, while the anchor handling vessel remains connected to the floating vessel or structure to be moored by a line, said anchor handling vessel moving to a selected position over mooring line assembly;
e) connecting the anchor handling vessel to said mooring line assembly by a hold back line (720), said connection made at a point (712b, see Figs. 1I,1K,1L) on said mooring line assembly between floating vessel or structure to be moored and said anchor; whereby said point of connection on said mooring line assembly is positioned along said mooring line assembly at a location closer to said floating vessel or structure to be moored than to said anchor (712b, see Figs. 1I, 1J, para 0059)
f) tensioning said hold-back line from the anchor handling vessel, thereby applying a desired tension to said mooring line assembly (para 0065-0070);
g) connecting said mooring line assembly to said floating vessel or structure to be moored, so as to maintain said desired tension in said mooring line assembly (para 0065-0070);
i) disconnecting said hold-back line from said mooring line assembly (see Fig. 1P and para 0072-0073).
Atallah et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Atallah et al. is silent about slacking off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure. EP document ‘258 teaches slacking off of said hold-back line (see abstract, col. 3 lines 54-col. 4 line 25; hold-back line “25” see Figs. 4, 6H, 6G; see Figs. 13D, 13F-13H; col. 9 lines 30-50, see the hold-back line depicted in Fig. 13G and col. 9 lines 30-50 supporting member 41 and meant to help in the lowering member (41)/fastened line) from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load (tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45) to said floating vessel or structure (releasing the hold-back line and recovering the laying device 41 once the desired sag line has been reached, see col. 9 line 35-47) (see Fig.13H, col. 9 line 30-50) (see Marked up Figures below).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atallah et al. to slack off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure as taught by EP document ‘258 (see marked up Figures below) since such a modification prevents a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
412
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
318
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
386
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, wherein said point of connection (712b, Figs. 1I-1M) of step e) is sufficiently close to said floating vessel or structure to be moored so as to create a desired tension in said mooring line assembly.
Re claim 4, wherein said mooring line segment comprises non-metallic fiber material (para 0056).
Re claims 6-7, whereby said point of connection (712b, see Figs. 1I-1M, para 0059)
is located substantially at a junction between said top line segment and said mooring line segment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “the Office Action acknowledges that the claim element 1(h) of "slacking off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel" is absent from Atallah et al. However, the Office Action cites EP '258 as allegedly disclosing the slacking off of a hold-back line (p. 4 of the Office Action); and/or then (apparently) cites EP '258 as support for modifying Atallah to include that element - - and then contends that such modification discloses all elements of claim 1, rendering it obvious”. Applicant submits that that reasoning, and the conclusion reached, is flawed. The examiner disagrees. The combination of Atallah et al. and EP ‘258 teach each and every claimed limitation as called for in the recited claims and the motivation/rationale for combining the references is proper.
Applicant suggests that claim 1 must be considered in its entirety, and claim elements
1(f) and 1(h) should be read and understood in the context of the claim. After tensioning of the hold-back line (If), the hold back line is slacked off (1h), both actions from the anchor handling vessel.
It should be noted that such argument is far more limiting than the claimed subject. The claim does not require a specific sequence of operation.
Furthermore, Atallah et al. discloses tensioning of the hold-back line (720) from anchor handling vessel (700) (see Figs. 1I-1P; para 0065-0073). Atallah et al. is silent of slacking off said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel. EP ‘258 teaches a hold back line is slacked off (col. 9 line 30-55, Figs. 13D-H, see discussion above).
It should be noted that EP teaches “tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45”. EP document ‘258 then teaches slacking off of said hold-back line (see abstract, col. 3 lines 54-col. 4 line 25; hold-back line “25” see Figs. 4, 6H, 6G; see Figs. 13D, 13F-13H; col. 9 lines 30-50, see the hold-back line depicted in Fig. 13G and col. 9 lines 30-50 supporting member 41 and meant to help in the lowering member (41)/fastened line) from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer the tension load (tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45) to said floating vessel or structure (releasing the hold-back line and recovering the laying device 41 once the desired sag line has been reached, see col. 9 line 35-47) (see Fig.13H, col. 9 line 30-50) (see Marked up Figures above).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atallah et al. to slack off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure as taught by EP document ‘258 since such a modification prevents a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document).
The examiner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Atallah et al. and EP ‘258 to prevent a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see rejection stated above).
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach “a desired tension to be placed in the mooring line assembly by imposing those forces by a vessel other than the vessel being moored, namely the anchor handling vessel”. The examiner disagrees. It should be noted that Atallah et al. teaches a desired tension to be placed in the mooring line assembly (701) by imposing those forces by a vessel (700) (see Figs. 1I-1P; para 0065-0073) other than the vessel being moored, namely the anchor handling vessel (700).
Furthermore, it should be noted that EP teaches “tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain from the anchor handling vessel, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45” and marked up Figures above.
Applicant argues that Atallah fails to teach “the slacking off of the hold-back line is done in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to the floating structure or vessel.
The examiner agrees. However, the examiner relied on EP ‘258 to teach the slacking off of the hold-back line is done in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to the floating structure or vessel (col. 9 line 30-55, Figs. 13D-H and in the explicit discussion of the rejection of claim 1 above).
EP document ‘258 teaches slacking off of said hold-back line (see abstract, col. 3 lines 54-col. 4 line 25; hold-back line “25” see Figs. 4, 6H, 6G; see Figs. 13D, 13F-13H; col. 9 lines 30-50, see the hold-back line depicted in Fig. 13G and col. 9 lines 30-50 supporting member 41 and meant to help in the lowering member (41)/fastened line) from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load (tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45) to said floating vessel or structure (releasing the hold-back line and recovering the laying device 41 once the desired sag line has been reached, see col. 9 line 35-47) (see Fig.13H, col. 9 line 30-50) (see Marked up Figures above).
Applicant contends there is no motivation or proper basis to combine Atallah with EP '258. The examiner disagrees.
Atallah et al. discloses tensioning of the hold-back line (720) from anchor handling vessel (700) (see Figs. 1I-1P; para 0065-0073). Atallah et al. is silent of slacking off said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel. EP ‘258 teaches a hold back line is slacked off (col. 9 line 30-55, Figs. 13D-H).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atallah et al. to slack off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure as taught by EP document ‘258 since such a modification prevents a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document).
The examiner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Atallah et al. and EP ‘258 to prevent a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see rejection stated above).
Applicant argues that "slacking off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel," in a controlled manner as taught by EP ‘258, is directed toward a different purpose than what is claimed. The examiner disagrees. EP ‘258 teaches "slacking off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel," in a controlled manner prevents a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document) which is precisely the same reason applicant’s claim calls for slacking off said hold back line to avoid putting stress “tension” on the underwater fairlead chain stopper (80).
Applicant disagrees with the characterization of EP '258. Certainly, what appears to be called an "auxiliary cable" (col. 9, lines 40/41), attached to a "laying device 41," is not a holdback line as disclosed and claimed in the present invention. The examiner disagrees. As depicted in Fig 13G and explained in col 9 line 30+, links 39 and 26 are released from the chain drum and cable drum respectfully. The holdback line (25, see Figs. 4, 6H and marked up drawings above) lowers the mooring line (see marked up Figures above) in a controlled manner so as to gradually transfer tension load to the floating vessel/structure (see marked up Figure above and col. 9 lines 37-50).
Applicant argues “referring to Fig. 13H of EP '258, there is no connection (that is, cable or the like) between what appears to be a floating vessel (not specifically identified in that drawing) and the floating platform. Such argument is not fully understood. However, see marked up drawing above wherein all the alleged missing elements are labeled. “Floating vessel = anchor handling vessel” and “Floating platform = floating vessel or structure” (see marked up drawings above). Holdback line and mooring line are depicted in above marked up drawing. In addition, Atallah et al. discloses a connection between what appears to be a floating vessel “anchoring handling vessel” (200, 700, Figs. 1I-1P) and the floating platform “floating vessel or structure” (200, Figgs. 1I-1P) and the tensioning of the hold-back line (720) from anchor handling vessel (700) (see Figs. 1I-1P; para 0065-0073).
Applicant submits then that EP '258 neither discloses the element(s) of claim 1 which the Office Action acknowledges are not disclosed by Atallah et al; nor provides a suggestion to modify Atallah so as to achieve the missing elements; further, Applicant submits that there is no suggestion of a combination of Atallah and EP '258.
As such, the Sec. 103 rejection is improper and should be withdrawn. The examiner disagrees. See rejection discussed above.
The examiner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Atallah et al. and EP ‘258 to prevent a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see rejection stated above).
As discussed in the prior art, method of mooring a floating vessel/structure using a handling vessel, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know about slacking off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure. An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513,516 (CCPA 1962).
The cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
As discussed in the prior art, method of mooring a floating vessel/structure using a handling vessel, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know about slacking off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure. An artisan must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose. The cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant contends that EP '258 does not satisfy the requisite documentary evidence.
The examiner disagrees. EP document ‘258 teaches slacking off of said hold-back line (see Figs. 13D, 13F-13H; col. 9 line 30+, see the hold-back line depicted in Fig. 13G supporting member 41 and meant to help in the lowering member (41)/fastened line) from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load (releasing the hold-back line and recovering the laying device 41 once the desired sag line has been reached, see col. 9 line 35-47) to said floating vessel or structure (see Fig.13H, col. 9 line 30+) since such steps prevent a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document).
Applicant argues that EP ‘258 fails to teach a connection between the floating vessel (anchor handling vessel) from which laying device 41 is lowered and the floating platform (floating vessel or structure). The examiner disagrees. Atallah et al. discloses a connection between what appears to be a floating vessel “anchoring handling vessel” (200, 700, Figs. 1I-1P) and the floating platform “floating vessel or structure” (200, Figs. 1I-1P) and the tensioning of the hold-back line (720) from anchor handling vessel (700) (see Figs. 1I-1P; para 0065-0073).
Applicant argues that laying device 41 (and the line from which it is suspended) is not used to gradually release an imposed tension force. The examiner disagrees. It should be noted applicant’s argument of “gradually release an imposed tension force” is far more limiting than the claimed limitation of “gradually transfer tension load”.
Furthermore, EP document ‘258 teaches lowering member (41)/fastened line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load (tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45) to said floating vessel or structure (releasing the hold-back line and recovering the laying device 41 once the desired sag line has been reached, see col. 9 line 35-47) (see Fig.13H, col. 9 line 30-50) (see Marked up Figures below).
Applicant argues that the problem with EP ‘258 (Figs. 14A,14B, col. 9 line 55 thru col. 10 line 23) appears to address a slipping of any “currently available” laying device or chaser.
The examiner disagrees that such a structure is a problem but actually enhances the laying process. EP ‘258 discloses col. 9 line 50+, that the prior art chasers having no kind of locking arrangement to prevent slipping of the line. EP ‘258 provides an improved laying device (41, chaser) wherein ropes (46) holds the mooring line attached thereto until the mooring line reaches its point of sag (see col. 9 line 55 thru col. 10 line 23). Once the mooring line reaches the point of sag, any sliding or slipping of the laying device 41 will not harm the floating platform (see col. 10 lines 20-23).
Applicant argues EP ‘258 does not address claim element (1h) which is a gradual release of an imposed tension force. The examiner disagrees. It should be noted applicant’s argument of “gradual release of an imposed tension force” is far more limiting than the claimed limitation of “gradually transfer tension load”.
Furthermore, EP document ‘258 teaches lowering member (41)/fastened line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load (tension is created by pulling of mooring line (7) to attach to platform chain, see col. 9 lines 23-30 and such tension load is supported by the holdback line, see col. 9 lines 35-45) to said floating vessel or structure (releasing the hold-back line and recovering the laying device 41 once the desired sag line has been reached, see col. 9 line 35-47) (see Fig.13H, col. 9 line 30-50) (see Marked up Figures below). The modification of Atallah et al. in view of the teaching of EP document prevents a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document).
Applicant contends there is no motivation or proper basis to combine Atallah with EP '258. The examiner disagrees. Atallah et al. discloses tensioning of the hold-back line (720) from anchor handling vessel (700) (see Figs. 1I-1P; para 0065-0073). Atallah et al. is silent of slacking off said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel. EP ‘258 teaches a hold back line is slacked off (col. 9 line 30-55, Figs. 13D-H).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atallah et al. to slack off of said hold-back line from said anchor handling vessel in a controlled manner, so as to gradually transfer tension load to said floating vessel or structure as taught by EP document ‘258 since such a modification prevents a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see col. 9 line 45+ of EP document).
The examiner has provided sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Atallah et al. and EP ‘258 to prevent a sudden jerk of the mooring line assembly that can damage the stopper of the floating vessel or structure (see rejection stated above).
The 103 rejection is deemed proper and is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571 270 5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
12/6/2025