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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esselbrugge et al. (US 7,458,752) in view of Roper et al. (US 9,903,509) and Harbison et al. (WO 2019/211612).
Regarding claim 1, Esselbrugge discloses a cladding for an elongate member to be deployed underwater, the cladding comprising multiple cladding sections (suppression elements 1) each including a plurality of part-cylindrical cladding portions (envelopes 2) configured to be retained around the elongate member (tubular element 100) by tension bands (bands 9), each cladding section having proximal and distal ends configured to couple to longitudinally neighbouring cladding sections (1; see Fig. 4) enabling a continuous length of the cladding to be constructed from multiple cladding sections, wherein at least one of the cladding sections is coupled to longitudinally neighbouring cladding sections at proximal and distal ends of the at least one cladding section (Figs. 1 - 5; col. 2, lines 24 - 54; col. 3, lines 18 - 21; col. 4, lines 22 - 37). Esselbrugge fails to disclose at least one cladding section is provided with a sensor module dock configured to receive and releasably mount a sensor module. Roper teaches a sensor module (sensor 46) disposed on a flow guide (22) (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 36 - 46) to sense the flow of the currents. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the flow guide comprising a projection (3) disclosed by Esselbrugge with the sensor module as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s). Roper is silent regarding how the sensor module is attached to the flow guide. Harbison teaches a sensor module dock (40) is configured to mechanically engage (snap fit) with the sensor module (30) to releasably retain the sensor module (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor dock comprising a the mechanical engagement between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 2, Esselbrugge discloses a plurality of part-cylindrical cladding portions (2) configured to be retained around the elongate member (100) by tension bands (9) and having proximal and distal ends each configured to couple to a respective neighbouring cladding section enabling a continuous length of the cladding to be constructed from multiple cladding sections (1) (Figs. 1 - 5; col. 2, lines 24 - 54; col. 3, lines 18 - 21; col. 4, lines 22 - 37). Esselbrugge fails to disclose at least one cladding section is provided with a sensor module dock configured to receive and releasably mount a sensor module. Roper teaches a sensor module (46) disposed on a flow guide (22) (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 36 - 46) to sense the flow of the currents. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the flow guide comprising a projection (3) disclosed by Esselbrugge with the sensor module as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s). Roper is silent regarding how the sensor module is attached to the flow guide. Harbison teaches a sensor module dock (40) is configured to mechanically engage (snap fit) with the sensor module (30) to releasably retain the sensor module (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor dock comprising a the mechanical engagement between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Esselbrugge fails to disclose the sensor module dock comprises a recess for receiving the sensor module. Roper teaches the sensor module dock (unlabeled recess in which sensor 46 is located) comprises a recess for receiving the sensor module (46) (Fig. 5). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor module dock and recess as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s). Assuming arguendo that the unlabeled recess as taught by Roper does not represent a recess in a dock module, Harbison teaches a recess (40) for receiving a sensor module (30) (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the sensor module dock and recess as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 4, Esselbrugge further discloses the cladding comprises a moulding (col. 1, lines 59 - 67). Esselbrugge fails to disclose the sensor module dock is integrally moulded in the cladding. Roper teaches the flow guide comprises a the sensor module dock (recess in which sensor 46 is located) is integrally formed in the cladding (Fig. 5). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor module dock as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s). Assuming arguendo that the unlabeled recess as taught by Roper does not represent a recess in a dock module, Harbison teaches a recess (40) for receiving a sensor module (30) (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the sensor module dock and recess as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement. Examiner notes that the claim is an apparatus claim and the method (moulding) by which an apparatus is made lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. Since the claim is an apparatus claim and the method by which the apparatus is made is not given patentable weight in the apparatus claim, the limitation "the sensor module dock is integrally moulded in the cladding" has been interpreted as "a sensor module dock integral with the cladding", as best understood by Examiner.
2113 Product-by-Process Claims
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE
IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module dock is configured to mechanically engage with the sensor module to releasably retain the sensor module. Esselbrugge in view of Roper are silent regarding how the sensor dock is engaged with the sensor module. Harbison teaches the sensor module dock (40) is configured to mechanically engage (snap fit) with the sensor module (30) to releasably retain the sensor module (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a the mechanical engagement between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module.
Regarding claim 6, Esselbrugge fails to disclose the sensor module dock comprises a recess extending substantially axially to receive the sensor module along a substantially axial direction. Harbison teaches a sensor module dock comprises a recess (40) extending substantially axially to receive the sensor module (30) along a substantially axial direction (Figs. 2a and 2b). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the sensor module dock and recess as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 7, Esselbrugge discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cladding has a longitudinal axis and in which the sensor module dock comprises a recess which is radially open to receive the sensor module along a substantially radial direction. Roper teaches the flow guide (22) has a longitudinal axis and in which the sensor module dock comprises a recess (unlabeled recess in which sensor 46 is positioned) which is radially open to receive the sensor module along a substantially radial direction (Fig. 5). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor module dock as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s).
Regarding claim 8, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module dock is configured to receive the sensor module as a snap fit. Esselbrugge in view of Roper are silent regarding how the sensor dock is engaged with the sensor module. Harbison teaches the sensor module dock (40) is configured to receive the sensor module (30) as a snap fit (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include the snap fit between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module dock comprises one or more radial upstands. Esselbrugge in view of Roper are silent regarding how the sensor dock is engaged with the sensor module. Harbison teaches the sensor module dock (40) comprises one or more radial upstands (unlabeled lateral walls of recess 58) (Figs. 6a and 6c; page 10, lines 20 - 30). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include the radial upstands as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module.
Regarding claim 10, Esselbrugge fails to disclose the sensor module dock includes a radially outwardly open recess (unlabeled recess in which 46 is positioned) for receiving the sensor module (46) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Esselbrugge discloses a cladding for an elongate member (100) to be deployed underwater, the cladding comprising multiple cladding sections (suppression elements 1) each being configured to receive the elongate member and each cladding section having proximal and distal ends configured to couple to longitudinally neighbouring cladding sections enabling a continuous length of the cladding to be constructed from multiple cladding sections, and a strake (projection 3) (Figs. 1 - 5; col. 2, lines 24 - 54; col. 3, lines 18 - 21; col. 4, lines 22 - 37). Esselbrugge fails to disclose at least one of the cladding sections is provided with a sensor module dock configured to receive and releasably mount a sensor module; and a strake, and wherein the sensor module dock is aligned with the strake. Roper teaches a sensor module dock (unlabeled recess in which sensor 46 is positioned) configured to receive and releasably mount a sensor module (46), wherein the sensor module dock is aligned with the strake (flow guide 22 is functionally equivalent to a strake) (Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 36 - 46) to sense the flow of the currents. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the flow guide comprising a projection (3) disclosed by Esselbrugge with the sensor module as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s). Roper is silent regarding how the sensor module is attached to the flow guide. Harbison teaches a sensor module dock (40) is configured to mechanically engage (snap fit) with the sensor module (30) to releasably retain the sensor module (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor dock comprising a the mechanical engagement between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 12, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module dock is configured to receive the sensor module with a part turn lock. Esselbrugge in view of Roper are silent regarding how the sensor dock is engaged with the sensor module. Harbison teaches the sensor module dock (40) is configured to receive the sensor module (30) with a part turn lock (Fig. 6; page 10, lines 19 30). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include the part turn lock between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module.
Regarding claim 13, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module dock comprises an upstanding male feature for receipt in a complementary female feature of the sensor module. Esselbrugge in view of Roper are silent regarding how the sensor dock is engaged with the sensor module. Harbison teaches the sensor module dock (recess in body 34) comprises an upstanding male feature (thread formed by groove 92) for receipt in a complementary female feature (groove 94) of the sensor module (30) (Figs. 9a - 9c; page 11, lines 13 - 20). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor module dock and male and female features as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and the sensor module.
Regarding claim 14, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module comprises a closed pressure vessel containing at least one sensor, a data logger for logging data from a sensor, an interface for outputting logged sensor data, and a battery arranged to power the sensor and the data logger. Harbison teaches a sensor module (30) configured to be received by the sensor module dock (40), wherein the sensor module comprises a closed pressure vessel containing at least one sensor (magnetometer, accelerometer, gyroscope), a data logger for logging data from the sensor, an interface for outputting logged sensor data, and a battery arranged to power the sensor and the data logger (Figs. 2a, 2b, and 12; page 6, lines 1 - 16; page 7, lines 5 - 7; page 7, line 17 page 8, line 31; page 9, lines 17 - 30; page 12, line 30 page 13, line 5). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor module dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to track the motion of the cladding.
Regarding claim 15, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module is retainable frictionally in the sensor module dock. Esselbrugge in view of Roper are silent regarding how the sensor dock is engaged with the sensor module. Harbison teaches the sensor module (30) is retainable frictionally in the sensor module dock (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a the frictional engagement between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module.
Regarding claim 16, Esselbrugge in view of Roper and Harbison discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cylindrical shape of the sensor module and the complimentary shape of the sensor dock module. Examiner takes the position that the shapes of the sensor module and sensor module dock lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art. A change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 17, Esselbrugge in view of Roper discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the sensor module has a handle or other graspable feature to be grasped by an effector of a remotely operated vehicle ("ROV") to facilitate retrieval of the sensor module from the cladding. Harbison teaches the sensor module (30i) has a handle (150) or other graspable feature to be grasped by an effector of a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to facilitate retrieval of the sensor module (30i) from the cladding (32, 34) (Fig. 19; page 13, lines 21 - 24). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include the sensor module handle as taught by Harbison to provide a means for removing the sensor module from the sensor module dock for repair or replacement.
Regarding claim 21, Esselbrugge further discloses the cladding sections (1) are separately formed from each other (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; col. 4, lines 22 - 37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 21 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Esselbrugge and Roper are not properly combinable because Esselbrugge solves its problem of vortex-induced vibration with passive projections while Roper solves its problem of drag with active measures. Examiner replies that the projections of both Esselbrugge and Roper are used to modify fluid flow and, therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Roper to teach a means of sensing the fluid flow around the projections to ensure that the apparatus as disclosed by Esselbrugge is producing the desired flow pattern.
Applicant argues that there is no discussion in Esselbrugge that projection 3 reduces the effect of drag. Examiner replies that even though Esselbrugge does not discuss the projection 3 reduces the effect of drag, the projections of both Esselbrugge and Roper are used to modify fluid flow and, therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Roper to teach a means of sensing the fluid flow around the projections to ensure that the apparatus as disclosed by Esselbrugge is producing the desired flow pattern.
Applicant argues that the flow guide would not be able to operate as designed with the presence of Esselbrugge’s projections. Examiner replies that the Esselbrugge projections are not being used top operate the flow guide as taught by Roper. Examiner has the apparatus of Esselbrugge has been modified to include the sensor module as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s) to ensure that the projections of Esselbrugge are producing the a desired flow pattern.
Applicant argues that the fixed projections as taught by Esselbrugge require no adjustment to counteract the different problem of vortex-induced vibration. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to modify the projections as disclosed by Esselbrugge with the sensor module as taught by Roper to sense the flow of the currents that are generated by the projection(s) to ensure that the projections of Esselbrugge are producing the a desired flow pattern.
Applicant argues that Roper has no disclosure that the sensors are in a dock. Examiner replies that Roper has not been relied upon to teach a dock. As discussed above, Roper is silent regarding how the sensor module is attached to the flow guide. Harbison teaches a sensor module dock (40) is configured to mechanically engage (snap fit) with the sensor module (30) to releasably retain the sensor module (Figs. 2a and 2b; page 9, lines 29 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above to include a sensor dock comprising a the mechanical engagement between the sensor dock and sensor module as taught by Harbison to ensure a secure connection between the sensor dock and sensor module that allows for the removal of the sensor module for repair or replacement.
Applicant argues that there is no explanation of why the Esselbrugge system would care about current measured by the Roper sensor. Examiner replies that the Esselbrugge system would benefit from the measurement of current as provided by the Roper sensor to ensure that the projections were of the optimum size to provide the desired flow pattern. Changes in water currents and flow conditions encountered in the body of water in which the Esselbrugge system is to be used might require the removable projections of Esselbrugge to be replaced with projections of different dimensions to maintain the desired flow pattern.
Applicant argues that Harbison teaches away from the placing of the sensor module at the root end of the bend stiffener. Examiner replies that Esselbrugge in view of Roper teaches the placing of the sensor module at the desired location and Harbison was only relied upon to teach the means (dock) by which the sensor module is attached to the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
1/19/2026