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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2025 was filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 49-52 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There is no antecedent basis for “the node connector” (Claim 49) or “the node connector” (Claim 50). The recitations of “the node connector” as claimed in claims 49 and 50 are not clearly understood as to how “the node connector” is “configured to attach the secondary tubular element to an outer surface of one of the primary tubular elements” (Claim 49) or “the node connector” has “at least one jaw with a distal end face that has curvature complementary to the outer surface of said primary tubular element (Claim 50).”
Note that “a node connector” is recited in the dependent claim 48, but claim 49 depends on claim 35 as recited. It appears that claim 49 should depend on claim 48, instead of an independent claim 35.
Claims 51 and 52 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 49 and 50.
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 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 35, 36, 38, 39, 41-44, 46, 47, 54-56, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 2009/0072561) in view of Tardiff (7,222,903) (see IDS).
RE claims 35 and 55, Latham (US 2009/0072561) discloses a modular spreader structure capable of using in offshore lifts comprises providing a plurality of elongate primary tubular elements (11, 7, 9, and 11) (see Exhibit A of Fig. 1), wherein each primary tubular element comprises an axial coupler formation for end-to-end coupling with a complementary axial coupler formation (31) of another primary tubular element (41) of the structure (see Figs. 2a and 2b) (see Exhibit B) aligned on a common longitudinal axis. Note that Fig. 2(a) of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) provides a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) wherein the male coupler (31) is covered by a protective cover (37) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45) wherein the female coupler (41) is covered by a protective cover (47) as disclosed in paragraphs [0028], [0029], and [0030] of specification.
Latham (US 2009/0072561) does not specifically show the material selection (i.e., a composite material) of the spreader structure. However, Tardiff (7,222,903) teaches a modular spreader structure being made of steel, aluminum or a composite material (see from Col. 4, line 66, to Col. 5, line 15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a composite material on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Tardiff (7,222,903) to provide a light, but endurable and reliable device to a user.
RE claim 55, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) also teaches
inter-engaging elongate primary tubular elements end-to-end in mutual alignment on a common longitudinal axis by virtue of longitudinal overlap between axial coupler formations of the primary tubular elements as stated in paragraphs [0028], [0029], and [0030] of specification.
RE claims 36, 39, and 43, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) shows a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45) wherein adjoining primary tubular elements are inter-engageable by longitudinal overlap between their axial coupler formations (RE claim 43).
RE claims 44 and 56, Figs. 2a and 2b of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) teach at least one locking pin (51) extending through mutually aligned transverse bores in the axial coupler formations.
Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (an external stopper formation having a ridge (43)
(RE Claims 46 and 47))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exhibit B
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
RE claim 42, Fig. 1 of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) substantially shows that the axial coupler formation of each primary tubular element extends distally from a radially enlarged portion (43) of the tubular element that has locally increased wall thickness.
RE claims 38 and 41, Figs. 2a and 2b of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) teach the axial coupler formation of at least one of the primary tubular elements comprises a complementary female formation wherein the female formation is surrounded by a distally facing flange.
RE claims 46 and 47, Figs. 1, 2a and 2b of Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) show that at least one of the primary tubular elements comprises an external stopper formation having a ridge (43) extending circumferentially around said primary tubular element.
RE claim 54, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) shows that
the number and lengths of spreaders struts (7, 9) could be used (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039]), but does not specifically show the structural dimension (i.e., no part of the structure is of more than 12m in length when disassembled). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the length of the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) to provide a shorter spreader to lift smaller or lighter objects to a user.
RE claim 60, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) discloses that
the number and lengths of spreaders struts (7, 9) could be used (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039]) and disassembling the spreader structure and reassembling the spreader structure at a different installation site or in a different configuration.
Claims 37, 40, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 2009/0072561) and Tardiff (7,222,903) (see IDS) and further in view of Blivet et al. (8,231,145).
RE claims 37 and 40, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561), as presented above, show a male coupler (31) having a spigot (35) and a female coupler (41) having an inner socket (45), but does not specifically show a tapered male or female formation. However, Figs. 1, 3, and 5 of Blivet et al. (8,231,145) employ a tapered male coupler (3) and a tapered female coupler (see Fig. 5). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a tapered male coupler (3) and a tapered female coupler on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Blivet et al. (8,231,145) to conveniently connect the male and female couplers together.
RE claim 40, Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) does not specifically show the material selection on the protective cover being made of steel. However, Figs. 1, 3, and 5 of Blivet et al. (8,231,145) shows a protective cover (9) to cover the tubular (see Col. 4, lines 2-18) and another protective layer (38) and washers (35) and member (37) being made of steel (see Col. 6, lines 14-24). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the material selection on the protective cover to be made of steel on the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Blivet et al. (8,231,145) to provide as an endurance and reliability to a user.
Claims 48-53 and 57-59, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 2009/0072561) and Tardiff (7,222,903) (see IDS) and further in view of Huested (2,730,398).
Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561), as presented above, shows that the number and lengths of spreaders struts (7, 9) could be used (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039]), but does not specifically show at least one secondary elongate tubular element having a node connector that is configured to attach the secondary tubular element to the structure at an orientation inclined relative to the common longitudinal axis of the primary tubular elements wherein the node connector is configured to attach the secondary tubular element to an outer surface of one of the primary tubular elements wherein the node connector comprises at least one jaw with a distal end face that has curvature complementary to the outer surface of said primary tubular element. However, Fig. 2 of Huested (2,730,398) discloses a lifting system having two spreaders (1 and 2) and a connector assembly to connect other two shorter spreaders (3 and 4) (See Figs. 3 and 4), which could be considered as one secondary elongate tubular element having a node connector with at least one jaw as shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5. Note that the bracket (5) is designed to provide a gripping curvature complementary to the outer surface (3, 4, 1, or 2) of said primary tubular element. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide at least one secondary elongate tubular element having a node connector (5) of the Latham’s modular spreader structure (US 2009/0072561) as taught by Huested (2,730,398) so that the modified spreader structure would be able to accommodate and lift a larger object to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cain; Christopher Alanm, Bishop; David J., and CALDWELL ROBERT H show spreaders.
Mazumder; Jyotirmoy, Wirtjes; Trevor Lavern, and Noel; Thierry teach a protective layer on the pipe or tubular.
Other references as listed in PTO-892 provide multiple spreaders to lift larger objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights