DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed December 31, 2025. The application has been updated accordingly.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a telescopic gangway" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if this is an additional telescopic gangway, in addition to the telescopic gangway recited in claim 17, or if this is a different telescopic gangway. Moreover, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bedford (2013/0312204).
Bedford discloses:
Claim 1: A temporary working platform (Fig. 1; 2) for removable attachment to a column of an offshore structure (Fig. 2; 8), comprising a frame (Fig. 2; 18) for carrying a working surface (Fig. 2; 24), and a mounting mechanism (Fig. 2; 14) for releasably mounting the temporary working platform to said column (Fig. 2; Para. [0050]), from a side of the column,
wherein the mounting mechanism includes a clamping mechanism (Fig. 3b; 10) that supports the frame.
Claim 2: The temporary working platform according to claim 1, wherein the mounting mechanism includes at least one of a unit for disposing a non-permanent adhesive, and an electromagnetic device (Fig. 2; 14).
Claim 3: The temporary working platform according to claim 2, wherein the clamping mechanism is arranged for at least partially surrounding the column and for releasably clamping said column (Fig. 3b; Para. [0050]).
Claim 4: The temporary working platform according to claim 3, wherein the clamping mechanism includes a pair of clamping jaws having respective free ends (Fig. 3b; 10 upper and lower, Para. [0050]), the jaws being mutually removable between a releasing state wherein the jaw free ends are relatively remote from each other (Fig. 3a; 10, Para. [0050]) and a clamping state wherein the jaw free ends are relatively close to each other (Fig. 3b; 10, Para. [0050]).
Claim 5: The temporary working platform according to claim 4, wherein the pair of clamping jaws are pivotably mounted to each other such that the clamping jaws are pivotable between the releasing state (Fig. 3a; 10, Para. [0050]) and the clamping state (Fig. 3b; 10, Para. [0050]).
Claim 6: The temporary working platform according to claim 3, further comprising an actuator for controllably driving the clamping mechanism (Para. [0050] describes hydraulics for operating the clamps (10)).
Claims 1-2 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Vessem et al. (2015/0284055) hereinafter Van Vessem.
Van Vessem discloses:
Claim 1: A temporary working platform for removable attachment to a column of an offshore structure (Fig. 1; 6), comprising a frame (Fig. 1; 15) for carrying a working surface (Fig. 1; 17), and a mounting mechanism (Fig. 1; 14, Para. [0034]) for releasably mounting the temporary working platform to said column (Fig. 1; 14, Para. [0034-0035]), from a side of the column,
wherein the mounting mechanism includes a clamping mechanism that supports the frame (Fig. 1; 14 supports 15 via 16).
Claim 2: The temporary working platform according to claim 1, wherein the mounting mechanism includes at least one of a unit for disposing a non-permanent adhesive, and an electromagnetic device (Fig. 1; 14).
Claim 21: A telescopic gangway (Fig. 1; 12 and 15 are described as telescopic arms, Para. [0034]) and A temporary working platform (Fig. 1; 17), wherein the telescopic gangway comprises first and second gangway parts which are telescopable relative to each other in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1; 12 and 15 are described as telescopic arms, Para. [0034]), as well as a primary coupling element (Fig. 1; 10) for removably coupling the telescopic gangway to the temporary working platform, and wherein the temporary working platform comprises a secondary coupling element (Fig. 1; 16) for removably coupling the temporary working platform to the telescopic gangway, as well as an actuated clamping mechanism (Fig. 1; 14 via the controller, Para. [0037]) suitable for removably attaching the working platform to a column (Fig, 1; 6) of an offshore construction by at least partially surrounding said column with said actuated clamping mechanism (Fig. 1; 14 clamps onto 6),
wherein the clamping mechanism supports a frame of the temporary working platform (Fig. 1; 14 supports 17 via 15).
Claim 22: A method of handling a temporary working platform according to claim 2, the method comprising removably attaching the temporary working platform to an offshore construction (Para. [0034-0039]).
Claim 23: The method according to claim 22, comprising a step of controllably driving the clamping mechanism to a clamping state wherein the clamping mechanism clamps a column of an offshore construction (Para. [0037-0039]).
Claim 24: The method according to claim 23, further comprising a step of decoupling the temporary working platform from a transport system, after the step of controllably driving the clamping mechanism to the clamping state (Para. [0037-0039]).
Claim 25: The method according to claim 22, comprising a step of coupling the temporary working platform to a transport system, the temporary working platform being removably attached to a column of an offshore construction (Para. [0037-0039]).
Claim 26: The method according to claim 25, further comprising a step of driving the clamping mechanism to a releasing state wherein the clamping mechanism releases the column of the offshore construction, after the coupling step (Para. [0037-0039]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedford (2013/0312204).
Claim 12: Bedford discloses the temporary working platform according to claim 1, further comprising a first coupling element (Fig. 3b; see detail) for releasable coupling (via the extension occurring between Fig. 3a and 3b) to a second coupling element (Fig. 3b; see detail) but fails to disclose being mounted on a telescopic gangway transporting the platform to and from the column of the offshore structure.
However, Bedford does disclose a telescopic gangway in an alternate embodiment (Fig. 8; 218, Para. [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment of Bedford to include the telescoping gangway, as taught by the third embodiment of Bedford with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the gangway to be extended in order to bring the clamping mechanism into contact with the tube (12).
PNG
media_image1.png
529
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14: The temporary working platform according to claim 12, wherein the first or second coupling element includes a guiding structure for guiding the first and second coupling elements towards each other (Fig. 3b; see detail).
Claim 15: The temporary working platform according to claim 12, further comprising a locking element (Fig. 3b; via the guiding structure, see detail) for locking the first coupling element to the second coupling element.
Claim 17: A telescopic gangway, comprising a second coupling element (Fig. 3b; see detail) for releasable coupling (via the extension occurring between Fig. 3a and 3b) to a first coupling element (Fig. 3b; see detail) of the temporary working platform (Fig. 2; 24) according to claim 12.
Claim 18: The transport system according to claim 17, wherein the second coupling element is mounted to a free end or tip of the transport system (Fig. 1; at 14).
Claim 19: The transport system according to claim 17, coupled to the temporary working platform (Fig. 2; see detail).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20: A vessel (Fig. 1; 6), comprising a transport system (Fig. 1; 2), such as a telescopic gangway (see the rejection of claim 12), according to claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejections, applicant argues that the primary reference of Van Vessem fails to disclose a temporary working platform for personnel to work on the surface of a column. This argument is not persuasive because the basket (17) of Van Vessem is described as “for transferring personnel and small equipment” to the platform (4) which is attached to the column (3). The examiner considers such activities as “work” being performed and that, as such, the basket, of Van Vessem meets the claim limitation.
The applicant further argues that the gripper of Van Vessem fails to disclose that it is configured for removable attachment. This argument is not persuasive because the basket is depicted as moving from the deck of the vessel to the column where the grippers couple to the column, and while there is no disclosure indicating that the grippers are then uncoupled, the examiner would like to point out that a removable connection is a connection that can be undone. The gripper, arm and basket are described as forming a module including a hydraulic power supply, which would, presumably, allow the grippers to couple to the column. It is well known that hydraulics operate actuators, which are operable to activate (couple the grippers) and deactivate (remove the grippers). Additionally, there is no indication that the grippers make a permanent connection to the column, therefore, the examiner considers this connection as removeable. The examiner would like to note that virtually all connections are all removable. It appears the applicant is arguing a more narrow interpretation of “removable” and should consider including more specific claim language distinguishing the “removable” aspects of the grippers.
Lastly, the applicant argues that Van Vessem fails to disclose that the clamping mechanism supports a frame for carrying a working surface. This argument is not persuasive because, as noted in the rejection above, Van Vessem depicts, in Figs. 3B-3C, that the clamping mechanism (14) supports the working surface (17) via the frame section (15).
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive and the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights