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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites “a plurality of shear keys present on the stab-in portion” but claim 1, from which claim 23 depends, recites “the leg lacking protuberances on an outer side wall”. The original disclosure does not describe how the stab-in portion can have shear keys on it while the leg, which includes the stab-in portion, lacks protuberances on an outer side wall.
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.
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, 3 - 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. (US 2015/0368871) in view of Williams (US 4,070,869), Hall (US 2011/0135401), and Mun (KR 2019105735).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel discloses an apparatus for applying grout in a region between a tubular sub-sea foundation pile (6) and a leg (post 5) of an offshore structure (tower 2) inserted into the foundation pile, the leg (5) lacking protuberances on an outer side wall of the leg and having a leg diameter and terminating in a stab-in portion (bottom half of post 5; see Fig. 1) defining a stab-in portion axis and a stab-in portion diameter (diameter of the lower end of post 5 adjacent plates 10; Figs. 2 and 3) wherein no portion or attachment distal to the stab-in portion is dimensioned to exceed the stab-in diameter along the stab-in portion axis (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0024 - 0026). The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel fails to disclose a rigid tube adapted to be inserted into the region, the rigid tube comprising an inlet for receiving grout, and an outlet, the outlet adapted to enter the foundation pile adjacent to the leg or stab-in portion and separate from the leg and stab- in portion to convey grout into the region and further comprising a flange configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion and limit an extent to which the leg can be inserted into the foundation pile wherein the flange defines a first aperture extending therethrough for locating the rigid tube, in use, relative to the foundation pile, and further comprising a second aperture therethrough configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel teaches a tube (grout line, not shown) adapted to be inserted into the region, the tube adapted to enter the foundation pile separate from the leg (paragraph 0039 and Fig. 3 teaches a grout line enters the foundation pile (6) separate from the leg (5) via opening 24) to convey grout into the region, and further comprising a flange (head plate 23) configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion and limit an extent to which the leg can be inserted into the foundation pile (6) wherein the flange (23) defines a first aperture (opening 24) extending therethrough for locating the tube, in use, relative to the foundation pile (Fig. 3; paragraphs 0037 - 0039). Examiner notes that the opening 24 as taught by Seidel is located at a remote distance from the leg, similar to the inlet of the present application, and therefore Seidel teaches a separate grout line inasmuch as the present application does. 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 by the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel to include the tube separate from the leg and a flange configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel to control the flow and placement of grout in the region and to inhibit movement of the leg by friction between the leg and the flange. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel fails to teach a rigid material; an inlet for receiving grout; and an outlet, the outlet adapted to enter the foundation pile adjacent to the leg, and a second aperture through the flange configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout. Williams teaches an inlet (end of tubing 20 adjacent mixer 24) for receiving grout; and an outlet (lower end 21), the outlet adapted to enter the foundation pile (12) adjacent to the leg (17) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 32 62). 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 grout tube as taught by Williams to provide a means for supplying grout to the space between the pile and the leg. Williams is silent regarding the material of which the grout tube is made. Hall teaches grout tubes comprising rigid material (metal) (paragraph 0023 teaches welding components of a grout tube (stinger 30)) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0023). 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 tube as disclosed above with the rigid material as taught by Hall as a design consideration within the skill of the art to meet predetermined strength requirements for the grout tube. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Williams and Hall fail to teach a second aperture through the flange configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout. Mun teaches a second aperture (aperture through which discharge pipe 133 extends) through a flange (plate 170) configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout (Figs. 2 and 7; paragraphs 0027, 0036 - 0038, and 0044). 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 second aperture as taught by Mun to ensure that the region is completely filled with grout by allowing the region to be filled to the point of overflowing.
Regarding claim 3, Seidel fails to disclose the rigid tube comprises a sidewall, and wherein the outlet is disposed in the sidewall. Hall discloses the outlet (slots 32) is disposed in the sidewall (elongated section 39) (Fig. 3; col. 5, lines 24 - 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 outlet disposed in the sidewall as taught by Hall to control the discharge of grout into specific location(s) in the annulus between the foundation pile and the leg.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Seidel discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a closed end provided by a plug or cap located opposite to an inlet end of the inlet. Hall teaches a closed end provided by a cap (tip guard 33) located opposite the inlet end (Fig. 3; paragraph 0023) to prevent the tip from hanging up or jamming in the upper pile section during insertion and retraction. 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 closed end provided by a cap as taught by Hall to prevent the tip from hanging up or jamming in the pile section during insertion and retraction.
Regarding claim 5, Seidel fails to disclose a plurality of outlets disposed in a sidewall, the outlets being circumferentially spaced thereabout. Hall teaches a plurality of outlets (slots 32) disposed in a sidewall (39), the outlets being circumferentially spaced thereabout (Fig. 3; paragraph 0023). 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 plurality of outlets disposed in the sidewall as taught by Hall to control the discharge of grout into specific locations in the annulus between the foundation pile and the leg.
Regarding claim 9, Seidel in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rigid tube has a diameter of between 2 and 4 inches. Examiner takes the position that the diameter of the rigid tube lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel further discloses the leg (5) of the offshore structure (2) does not comprise any internal and/or integrated means for conveying grout into the tubular sub-sea foundation pile (6) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel fails to disclose a plurality of shear keys present on the stab-in portion. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel teaches a plurality of shear keys (lug plates 22) present on the stab-in portion (Fig. 3; paragraph 0038). 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 by Fig. 1 of Seidel with the shear keys as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel to reduce movement of the leg during curing of the grout.
Claims 1, 8 - 10, 14 - 18, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Sullaway et al. (US 4,789,271), and Mun.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel discloses an apparatus for applying grout in a region between a tubular sub-sea foundation pile (6) and a leg (post 5) of an offshore structure (tower 2) inserted into the foundation pile, the leg (5) lacking protuberances on an outer side wall of the leg and having a leg diameter and terminating in a stab-in portion (bottom half of post 5; see Fig. 1) defining a stab-in portion axis and a stab-in portion diameter (diameter of the lower end of post 5 adjacent plates 10; Figs. 2 and 3) wherein no portion or attachment distal to the stab-in portion is dimensioned to exceed the stab-in diameter along the stab-in portion axis (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0024 - 0026). The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel fails to disclose a rigid tube adapted to be inserted into the region, the rigid tube comprising an inlet for receiving grout, and an outlet, the outlet adapted to enter the foundation pile adjacent to the leg or stab-in portion and separate from the leg and stab- in portion to convey grout into the region and further comprising a flange configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion and limit an extent to which the leg can be inserted into the foundation pile wherein the flange defines a first aperture extending therethrough for locating the rigid tube, in use, relative to the foundation pile, and further comprising a second aperture therethrough configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel teaches a tube (grout line, not shown) adapted to be inserted into the region, the tube adapted to enter the foundation pile separate from the leg (paragraph 0039 and Fig. 3 teaches a grout line enters the foundation pile (6) separate from the leg (5) via opening 24) to convey grout into the region, and further comprising a flange (head plate 23) configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion and limit an extent to which the leg can be inserted into the foundation pile (6) wherein the flange (23) defines a first aperture (opening 24) extending therethrough for locating the tube, in use, relative to the foundation pile (Fig. 3; paragraphs 0037 - 0039). Examiner notes that the opening 24 as taught by Seidel is located at a remote distance from the leg, similar to the inlet of the present application, and therefore Seidel teaches a separate grout line inasmuch as the present application does. 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 by the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel to include the tube separate from the leg and a flange configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel to control the flow and placement of grout in the region and to inhibit movement of the leg by friction between the leg and the flange. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel fails to teach a rigid material; an inlet for receiving grout; and an outlet, the outlet adapted to enter the foundation pile adjacent to the leg, and a second aperture through the flange configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout. Williams teaches an inlet (end of tubing 20 adjacent mixer 24) for receiving grout; and an outlet (lower end 21), the outlet adapted to enter the foundation pile (12) adjacent to the leg (17) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 32 - 62). 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 grout tube as taught by Williams to provide a means for supplying grout to the space between the pile and the leg. Williams is silent regarding the material of which the grout tube is made. Sullaway teaches grout tubes comprising rigid material (conduit string 108 comprising rigid drill pipe) (col. 5, lines 19 - 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 tube as disclosed above with the rigid material as taught by Sullaway as a design consideration within the skill of the art to meet predetermined strength requirements for the grout tube. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Williams and Sullaway fail to teach a second aperture through the flange configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout. Mun teaches a second aperture (aperture through which discharge pipe 133 extends) through a flange (170) configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout (Figs. 2 and 7; paragraphs 0027, 0036 - 0038, and 0044). 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 second aperture as taught by Mun to ensure that the region is completely filled with grout by allowing the region to be filled to the point of overflowing.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Seidel discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a flexible conduit, the flexible conduit having a first end for connection with a source of grout, and a second end connected to the rigid tube. Sullaway teaches a flexible conduit (flexible grout line 102), the flexible conduit (102) having a first end for connection with a source of grout (pumping unit 104), and a second end connected to the rigid tube (108) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 5, lines 19 - 47). 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 flexible conduit as taught by Sullaway to provide a means of supplying and transporting grout to the rigid tube.
Regarding claim 9, Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rigid tube has a diameter of between 2 and 4 inches. Examiner takes the position that the diameter of the rigid tube lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flexible conduit has a diameter of between 2 and 4 inches. Examiner takes the position that the diameter of the flexible conduit lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel further discloses the leg (5) of the offshore structure (2) does not comprise any internal and/or integrated means for conveying grout into the tubular sub-sea foundation pile (6) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 17 and 21, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel discloses a method of fixing an offshore structure (2) to a pre-piled sub-sea foundation pile (6), wherein the foundation pile comprises a tube piled into the sea floor (1) and the offshore structure comprises a leg (5) inserted into the pre-piled sub-sea foundation pile (6) the leg (5) lacking protuberances on an outer side wall of the leg and having a leg diameter and terminating in a stab-in portion (bottom half of post 5) defining a stab-in portion axis and a stab-in portion diameter (diameter of the lower end of post 5; Fig. 1) wherein no portion or attachment distal to the stab-in portion is dimensioned to exceed the stab-in diameter along the stab-in portion axis, wherein the method comprises, applying a grout to a first region between the foundation pile (6) and the leg (5), and allowing the grout to at least partially cure in the first region (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0024 - 0026). The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel fails to disclose a flange attached to the leg or stab-in portion to limit an extent to which the leg can be inserted into the foundation pile, the flange defining a first aperture therethrough, rigid material, a second aperture through the flange, lowering a tube into a region described between the foundation pile and the leg through the first aperture in the flange such that an outlet of the rigid tube is at a first position approximate a dredge line within the foundation pile, and applying a grout to a first region between an end of the leg and the dredge line within the foundation pile via the tube, moving the outlet of the rigid tube to a second position above the first region, and applying grout to a second region between the first region and the flange within the foundation pile until grout flows through the second aperture in the flange, thereafter removing the rigid tube from the pre-piled sub-sea foundation pile. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel teaches the leg (5) having a flange (23) attached to the leg or stab-in portion to limit an extent to which the leg can be inserted into the foundation pile (6), the flange (23) defining a first aperture (24) therethrough (Fig. 3; paragraphs 0037 - 0039). 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 by the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel to include the tube separate from the leg and a flange configured to be attached to the leg or stab-in portion as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel to control the flow and placement of grout in the region and to inhibit movement of the leg by friction between the leg and the flange. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel fails to teach rigid material, a second aperture through the flange, lowering a tube into a region described between the foundation pile and the leg through the first aperture in the flange such that an outlet of the rigid tube is at a first position approximate a dredge line within the foundation pile, and applying a grout to a first region between an end of the leg and the dredge line within the foundation pile via the tube, moving the outlet of the rigid tube to a second position above the first region, and applying grout to a second region between the first region and the flange within the foundation pile until grout flows through the second aperture in the flange, thereafter removing the rigid tube from the pre-piled sub-sea foundation pile. Williams teaches lowering a tube (20) into a region described between the foundation pile (12) and the leg (17) such that an outlet (21) of the tube is at a first position, applying a grout to a first region (lower portion of annular space 18) between an end of the leg and the dredge line within the foundation pile via the tube, moving the outlet (21) of the rigid tube to a second position above the first region, and applying grout to a second region (region of annular space 18 above and adjacent to plug 26) between the first region and the top of the foundation pile until grout flows through the top of the foundation pile, thereafter removing the rigid tube from the pre-piled sub-sea foundation pile (Figs. 2 and 3; col. 2, line 32 -col. 3, line 52). 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 grout tube as taught by Williams to provide a means for supplying grout to the space between the pile and the leg. Williams is silent regarding the material of which the grout tube is made. Sullaway teaches grout tubes comprising a rigid material (conduit string 108 comprising rigid drill pipe) (col. 5, lines 19 - 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 tube as disclosed above with the rigid material as taught by Sullaway as a design consideration within the skill of the art to meet predetermined strength requirements for the grout tube. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Williams and Sullaway fail to teach a second aperture through the flange. Mun teaches a second aperture (aperture through which discharge pipe 133 extends) through a flange (170) configured to pass overflow grout therethrough once the region is filled with grout (Figure; abstract; claim). 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 second aperture as taught by Mun to ensure that the region is completely filled with grout by allowing the region to be filled to the point of overflowing. Given the apparatus and method as disclosed above, the method of claim 21 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel fails to disclose a plurality of shear keys present on the stab-in portion. The embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel teaches a plurality of shear keys (lug plates 22) present on the stab-in portion (Fig. 3; paragraph 0038). 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 by Fig. 1 of Seidel with the shear keys as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Seidel to reduce movement of the leg during curing of the grout.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (CN 210395326). Seidel in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a sidewall of the rigid tube comprises indicia configured to provide, in use, an indication of a depth to which the outlet is inserted into the foundation pile. Yuan teaches a sidewall of a tube (grouting pipe 3) comprises indicia (scale lines 6) configured to provide, in use, an indication of a depth to which the outlet is inserted into the foundation pile (Fig. 1; abstract; paragraph 0020) to ensure that the grout is effectively solidified during pressure grouting of the grouting pile and the pile forming quality of the pile is effectively guaranteed. 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 rigid tube as disclosed above with the indicia as taught by Yuan to ensure that to ensure that the grout is effectively solidified during pressure grouting of the grouting pile and the pile forming quality of the pile is effectively guaranteed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Sullaway et al., and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (CN 210395326). Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a sidewall of the rigid tube comprises indicia configured to provide, in use, an indication of a depth to which the outlet is inserted into the foundation pile. Yuan teaches a sidewall of a tube (grouting pipe) comprises indicia (scale lines) configured to provide, in use, an indication of a depth to which the outlet is inserted into the foundation pile (Figure; abstract) to ensure that the grout is effectively solidified during pressure grouting of the grouting pile and the pile forming quality of the pile is effectively guaranteed. 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 rigid tube as disclosed above with the indicia as taught by Yuan to ensure that to ensure that the grout is effectively solidified during pressure grouting of the grouting pile and the pile forming quality of the pile is effectively guaranteed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 111321739). Seidel in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rigid tube has a diameter of between 2 and 4 inches. Chen teaches a grout tube having a diameter of 2 inches (50 mm) (abstract). 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 rigid tube as disclosed above with diameter of the tube as taught by Chen as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the amount of grout to be delivered to the region between the foundation pile and leg.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Sullaway et al., and Mun as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al.
Regarding claim 9, Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rigid tube has a diameter of between 2 and 4 inches. Chen teaches a grout tube having a diameter of 2 inches (50 mm) (abstract). 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 rigid tube as disclosed above with a diameter of the tube as taught by Chen as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the amount of grout to be delivered to the region between the foundation pile and leg.
Regarding claim 10, Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flexible conduit has a diameter of between 2 and 4 inches. Chen teaches a grout tube having a diameter of 2 inches (50 mm) (abstract). 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 flexible conduit as disclosed above with diameter of the tube as taught by Chen as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the amount of grout to be delivered to the region between the foundation pile and leg.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gudmestad et al. (US 4,569,618). Seidel in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flange comprises a funnel guide positioned at the first aperture to guide the rigid tube into the foundation pile. Gudmestad teaches a flange (plate 1) comprises a funnel guide (funnel 4) arranged around a first aperture to guide a rigid tube (steel tube 2) through the flange (Figure; col. 2, lines 11 - 15) to guide the tube through the opening in the plate. 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 funnel guide as taught by Gudmestad to guide the rigid tube through the opening in the flange and into the foundation pile.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Sullaway et al., and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gudmestad et al. (US 4,569,618). Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the flange comprises a funnel guide arranged around the first aperture to guide the rigid tube into the foundation pile. Gudmestad teaches a flange (plate 1) comprises a funnel guide (funnel 4) arranged around a first aperture to guide a rigid tube (steel tube 2) through the flange (Figure; col. 2, lines 11 - 15) to guide the tube through the opening in the plate. 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 funnel guide as taught by Gudmestad to guide the rigid tube through the opening in the flange and into the foundation pile.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams and Hall. The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel discloses an apparatus for applying grout in a region between a tubular sub- sea foundation pile (6) and a leg (post 5) of an offshore structure (tower 2) inserted into the foundation pile, the leg (5) lacking protuberances on an outer side wall of the leg, the apparatus comprising a tube (grout line, not shown) adapted to be inserted into the region, the tube having a tube diameter (a tube inherently has a diameter), and the end of the tube having an end diameter (as stated above, a tube inherently has a diameter) that is approximately equivalent to the tube diameter (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0024 - 0026 and 0039). Examiner notes that the term "equivalent" is defined as "equal, as in value, force, or meaning" (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/equivalent) and the tube diameter and the end diameter as disclosed by Seidel are equal in meaning (a diameter is defined as a straight line segment passing through the center of a figure, especially of a circle or sphere, and terminating at the periphery) (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/diameter). The embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel fails to disclose a rigid material; an inlet for receiving grout; a sidewall, and a single outlet disposed in the sidewall and a closed end opposite to the inlet end. Williams teaches an inlet (end of tubing 20 adjacent mixer 24) for receiving grout; a sidewall, and an outlet (lower end 21) (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 32 - 62). 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 grout tube as taught by Williams to provide a means for supplying grout to the space between the pile and the leg. Williams fails to teach the outlet is disposed in the sidewall and a closed end opposite to the inlet end and is silent regarding the material of which the grout tube is made. Hall teaches the outlet (one of the slots 32) is disposed in the sidewall (elongated section 39) and a closed end (33) opposite to the inlet end, and grout tubes comprising rigid material (metal) (paragraph 0023 teaches welding components of a grout tube (stinger 30)) (Fig. 3; paragraph 0023). 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 tube as disclosed above with the outlet and the closed end as taught by Hall to discharge grout into specific location(s) in the annulus between the foundation pile and the leg and also to modify the apparatus as disclosed above with the rigid material as taught by Hall as a design consideration within the skill of the art to meet predetermined strength requirements for the grout tube. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Examiner takes the position that the closed end as taught by Hall reads on the claim limitation because claim 22 is an apparatus claim and the process by which an apparatus is made lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim. Therefore, "a welded closed end" as recited in the claim has been interpreted as "a closed end".
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
"TE]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). Although Hall fails to teach a single outlet, Examiner takes the position that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a single outlet as taught by Hall for a plurality of outlets as taught by Hall to reduce the flow of grout out of the sidewall and to limit the discharge of grout to a specific location in the annulus between the foundation pile based on the size of the annulus into which the grout is applied and the amount of grout required to be placed in the annulus.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haugsoen et al. (US 2013/0149039). Assuming arguendo that the recited "shear keys" are ridges that surround the stab-in portion in a circumferential direction, Seidel in view of Williams, Hall, and Mun fails to disclose a plurality of shear keys present on the stab-in portion and with the stab-in portion diameter. Haugsoen teaches a leg (4) having a stab-in portion (extension 1 of leg 4) and a plurality of shear keys (ridges 10) present on the stab-in portion and with the stab-in portion diameter (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0031) to improve the binding to a grouting mass. 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 plurality of shear keys as taught by Haugsoen to improve the binding to a grouting mass.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al. in view of Williams, Sullaway et al., and Mun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haugsoen et al. (US 2013/0149039). Assuming arguendo that the recited "shear keys" are ridges that surround the stab- in portion in a circumferential direction, Seidel in view of Williams, Sullaway, and Mun fails to disclose a plurality of shear keys present on the stab-in portion and with the stab-in portion diameter. Haugsoen teaches a leg (4) having a stab-in portion (extension 1 of leg 4) and a plurality of shear keys (ridges 10) present on the stab-in portion and with the stab-in portion diameter (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0031) to improve the binding to a grouting mass. 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 plurality of shear keys as taught by Haugsoen to improve the binding to a grouting mass.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 - 10, 12, 14 - 18, and 21 - 23 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Examiner has relied upon the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel as the primary reference rather than the embodiments of Figs. 2 and 3 of Seidel as used in the previous Office actions. Examiner takes the position that the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Seidel teaches a leg (5) lacking protuberances on an outer side wall of the leg.
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 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
6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights