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 .
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn US 9,758,941 in view of Baylot US 2019/0061881.
Regarding claim 1, Finn teaches an offshore structure for drilling and/or producing a subsea well, the structure comprising:
a hull 110 having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the hull has a width Wh measured perpendicular to the longitudinal end of the hull in side view;
wherein the hull includes a plurality of parallel elongate columns 120 coupled together, wherein each column includes a variable ballast chamber 132 positioned axially between the first end and the second end of the hull and a first buoyant chamber 139 positioned between the variable ballast chamber and the first end of the hull;
wherein the first buoyant chamber is filled with a gas 106 and sealed from a surrounding environment;
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Finn Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image1.png
475
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an anchor 140 fixably coupled to and extending axially from the second end of the hull, wherein the anchor is configured to secure the hull to the sea floor 102;
wherein the anchor includes a body having an upper end coupled to the second end of the hull, a lower end distal the hull; and
a topside 150 mounted to the first end of the hull.
Finn does not teach that the anchor has an arrow-shaped geometry and a central axis coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull, wherein the anchor includes a plurality of angularly-spaced penetration members extending radially outwardly relative to from-the central axis of the anchor wherein each penetration member includes a radially inner side extending axially from the upper end to the lower end, and a radially outer side extending axially from the lower end, wherein the body of each penetration member has a width Wb measured radially to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side to the radially outer side of the body, wherein a ratio of the width Wh of the hull to the width Wb of the body of each penetration member ranges from 2.0 to 4.0. Baylot teaches an offshore platform anchor 100 comprising an arrow-shaped geometry (see fins 142) and a central axis, wherein the anchor includes angularly-spaced penetration members 140 extending radially from the central axis of the anchor, wherein each penetration member includes a body having an upper end coupled to the second end of the hull, a lower end distal the hull, a radially inner side extending axially from the upper end to the lower end, and a radially outer side extending axially from the lower end, wherein the body of each penetration member has a width Wb measured radially to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side to the radially outer side of the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the anchor of Finn with an anchor as taught by Baylot in order to use a simple anchor which can be driven under gravity into the sea floor and not require a mechanical pump system. As modified, the central axis is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull.
PNG
media_image2.png
319
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Baylot Figure 2
Neither Finn nor Baylot explicitly teach that a ratio of the width Wh of the hull to the width Wb of the body of each penetration member ranges from 2.0 to 4.0, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the penetration members to be half to a quarter of the hull width or whatever size was desired in order to tailor the anchor and hull for the specific intended installation site soil and/or environmental conditions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Put differently, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the penetration members to whatever size was desired in order to tailor the anchor and hull for the specific intended installation site soil and/or environmental conditions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Baylot also teaches that the anchor 100 tapers to a pointed tip at the second end of the anchor. If applicant disagrees or intended to recite a specific pointed tip, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of anchor pointed or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 3, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Baylot also teaches that each penetration member comprises the body 140 and a plurality of stiffeners 142 extending from the body.
Regarding claim 4, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Baylot also teaches that the body 140 of each penetration member is a plate (i) extending axially from the upper end of the corresponding body to the lower end of the corresponding body, and (ii) extending radially relative to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side of the corresponding body to the radially outer side of the corresponding body; wherein a first set of the plurality of stiffeners 142 extend from a first planar side of each plate and a second set of the plurality of stiffeners extend from a second planar side of each plate.
Regarding claim 5, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Baylot also teaches that the plurality of stiffeners 142 are oriented parallel to each other; wherein each stiffener is an elongate plate extending axially from the upper end of the corresponding body to the lower end of the corresponding body.
Regarding claim 6, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Baylot also teaches that the plate of each body 140 has a trapezoidal shape with the radially inner side of the body and the radially outer side of the body oriented parallel to the central axis of the anchor, the upper end of the body oriented perpendicular to the radially inner side and the radially outer side of the body. Baylot does not teach that the lower end of the body is oriented at an acute angle β relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the central axis of the anchor, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the body trapezoidal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper and/or easier soil penetration and anchoring. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 7, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Baylot also teaches that each penetration member 140 is angularly spaced 90° from each circumferentially adjacent penetration member.
Regarding claim 8, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Finn also teaches that the plurality of columns 120 are uniformly circumferentially-spaced about the longitudinal axis of the hull 110, and wherein the plurality of columns are uniformly radially spaced from the longitudinal axis of the hull.
Regarding claim 9, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Finn does not explicitly teach that each column is spaced from each circumferentially-adjacent column by a distance D that is at least 1.0 m, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to space the columns at least 1m apart in order to provide the desired overall size, rigidity or water flow-through, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Finn also teaches that each column 120 has a central axis, a first end disposed at the first end of the hull, and a second end proximal the second end of the hull; wherein each column includes a radially outer tubular wall 122 extending axially from the first end of the column to the second end of the column and an end plate 123 coupled to the outer tubular wall at the second end of the column, but does not teach that at least a portion of the end plate of each column is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 11, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. As stated above, Finn does not teach that at least a portion of the end plate of each column is oriented at an acute angle α between 0° and 20° relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted between 0° and 20° or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 12, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Finn also teaches a cell fixably coupled to the plurality of columns 120 and positioned between the plurality of columns proximal the second end of the hull, wherein the cell has a central axis coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull; wherein the cell comprises a fixed ballast chamber; and wherein the first end of the anchor 140 is fixably attached to the cell. Note that when the anchor is affixed to the second end of the columns, whatever surface it is attached to can be interpreted as the cell. Please also note that any component can be considered a fixed ballast chamber.
Regarding claim 13, Finn teaches a method, comprising:
(a) positioning a buoyant platform at an offshore installation site, wherein the platform includes a hull 110, a topside 150 mounted to a first end of the hull, and an anchor 140 fixably coupled to a second end of the hull;
wherein the hull has a central axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the hull has a width Wh measured perpendicular to the longitudinal end of the hull in side view;
wherein the anchor includes a body having an upper end coupled to the second end of the hull, a lower end distal the hull;
(b) ballasting the hull;
(c) penetrating the sea floor 102 with the anchor; and
(d) allowing the platform to pitch about the second end of the hull after (c) (column 2, lines 44-54).
Finn does not teach that the anchor has an arrow-shaped geometry and a central axis coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull, wherein the anchor includes a plurality of angularly-spaced penetration members extending radially outwardly relative to from-the central axis of the anchor wherein each penetration member includes a radially inner side extending axially from the upper end to the lower end, and a radially outer side extending axially from the lower end, wherein the body of each penetration member has a width Wb measured radially to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side to the radially outer side of the body, wherein a ratio of the width Wh of the hull to the width Wb of the body of each penetration member ranges from 2.0 to 4.0. Baylot teaches an offshore platform anchor 100 comprising an arrow-shaped geometry (see fins 142) and a central axis, wherein the anchor includes angularly-spaced penetration members 140 extending radially from the central axis of the anchor, wherein each penetration member includes a body having an upper end coupled to the second end of the hull, a lower end distal the hull, a radially inner side extending axially from the upper end to the lower end, and a radially outer side extending axially from the lower end, wherein the body of each penetration member has a width Wb measured radially to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side to the radially outer side of the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the anchor of Finn with an anchor as taught by Baylot in order to use a simple anchor which can be driven under gravity into the sea floor and not require a mechanical pump system. As modified, the central axis is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull.
Neither Finn nor Baylot explicitly teach that a ratio of the width Wh of the hull to the width Wb of the body of each penetration member ranges from 2.0 to 4.0, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the penetration members to be half to a quarter of the hull width or whatever size was desired in order to tailor the anchor and hull for the specific intended installation site soil and/or environmental conditions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Put differently, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the penetration members to whatever size was desired in order to tailor the anchor and hull for the specific intended installation site soil and/or environmental conditions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Finn also teaches that (d) comprises allowing the platform to pitch to a maximum pitch angle relative to vertical that is less than 10° (column 13, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 15, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Finn also teaches that (a) comprises:
(a1) transporting the hull and the topside to the offshore installation site;
(a2) floating the hull at the sea surface in a horizontal orientation;
(a3) transitioning the hull from the horizontal orientation to a vertical orientation with the first end disposed above the second end; and
(a4) mounting the topside to the hull above the sea surface to form the platform (see Finn figures 7-17).
Regarding claim 16, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Finn also teaches that hull includes a plurality of circumferentially-spaced, parallel columns 120 disposed about the central axis of the hull, but does not teach that an end wall of each column disposed at or proximal the second end of the hull includes at least a first portion oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the central axis of the hull to the first portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 17, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Finn also teaches that the first portion of the end wall of at least one column 120 engages the sea floor during (d).
Regarding claim 18, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Finn also teaches that each end wall includes a second portion oriented parallel to the reference plane, and as modified the second portion of the end wall of each column is radially positioned between the first portion of the end wall and the central axis of the hull. As stated above, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 19, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. As stated above, Finn does not teach that the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the entire end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 20, Finn teaches an offshore structure for drilling and/or producing a subsea well, the structure comprising:
a hull 110 having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the hull has a width Wh measured perpendicular to the longitudinal end of the hull in side view;
wherein the hull includes a plurality of parallel elongate columns 120 coupled together, wherein each column includes a variable ballast chamber 132 positioned axially between the first end and the second end of the hull and a first buoyant chamber 139 positioned between the variable ballast chamber and the first end of the hull;
wherein the first buoyant chamber is filled with a gas 106 and sealed from a surrounding environment;
an anchor 140 fixably coupled to and extending axially from the second end of the hull, wherein the anchor is configured to secure the hull to the sea floor 102;
wherein the anchor includes a body having an upper end coupled to the second end of the hull, a lower end distal the hull; and
a topside 150 mounted to the first end of the hull.
Finn does not teach that the anchor has an arrow-shaped geometry and a central axis coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull, wherein the anchor includes a plurality of angularly-spaced penetration members extending radially outwardly relative to from-the central axis of the anchor wherein each penetration member includes a radially inner side extending axially from the upper end to the lower end, and a radially outer side extending axially from the lower end, wherein the body of each penetration member has a width Wb measured radially to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side to the radially outer side of the body, wherein a ratio of the width Wh of the hull to the width Wb of the body of each penetration member ranges from 2.0 to 4.0. Baylot teaches an offshore platform anchor 100 comprising an arrow-shaped geometry (see fins 142) and a central axis, wherein the anchor includes angularly-spaced penetration members 140 extending radially from the central axis of the anchor, wherein each penetration member includes a body having an upper end coupled to the second end of the hull, a lower end distal the hull, a radially inner side extending axially from the upper end to the lower end, and a radially outer side extending axially from the lower end, wherein the body of each penetration member has a width Wb measured radially to the central axis of the anchor from the radially inner side to the radially outer side of the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the anchor of Finn with an anchor as taught by Baylot in order to use a simple anchor which can be driven under gravity into the sea floor and not require a mechanical pump system. As modified, the central axis is coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull.
Finn does not teach that at least a first portion of each end wall is oriented at an acute angle a relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Neither Finn nor Baylot explicitly teach that a ratio of the width Wh of the hull to the width Wb of the body of each penetration member ranges from 2.0 to 4.0, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the penetration members to be half to a quarter of the hull width or whatever size was desired in order to tailor the anchor and hull for the specific intended installation site soil and/or environmental conditions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Put differently, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the penetration members to whatever size was desired in order to tailor the anchor and hull for the specific intended installation site soil and/or environmental conditions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 20. As stated above, Finn does not teach that at least a portion of the end plate of each column is oriented at an acute angle α between 0° and 20° relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted between 0° and 20° or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 22, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. As stated above, Finn does not teach that at least a portion of the end plate of each column is oriented at the same acute angle α between 0° and 20° relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted the same between 0° and 20° or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 23, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Finn also teaches that each end wall includes a second portion oriented parallel to the reference plane, and as modified the second portion of the end wall of each column is radially positioned between the first portion of the end wall and the central axis of the hull. As stated above, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 24, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. As stated above, Finn does not teach that the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the entire end wall slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to allow deeper or easier anchoring, reduce water resistance in transport or simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 10, 11 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn US 9,758,941 in view of Baylot US 2019/0061881 and Adams US 1,057,315.
Regarding an alternate interpretation of claim 10, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Finn also teaches that each column 120 has a central axis, a first end disposed at the first end of the hull, and a second end proximal the second end of the hull; wherein each column includes a radially outer tubular wall 122 extending axially from the first end of the column to the second end of the column and an end plate 123 coupled to the outer tubular wall at the second end of the column, but does not teach that at least a portion of the end plate of each column is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull.
Adams teaches a support with a base plate 1, wherein at least a portion 2 of the end plate of the base is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with an angled portion as taught by Adams in order to “permit a slight rocking movement” (page 1, lines 84-90).
PNG
media_image3.png
241
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Adams Figure 1
Regarding claim 11, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Neither Finn nor Adams teach that the angle α is between 0° and 20°, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the end plate between 0° and 20° in order to allow the hull to account for environmental loads without pitching too far, resulting in failure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding an alternate interpretation of claim 16, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Finn also teaches that hull includes a plurality of circumferentially-spaced, parallel columns 120 disposed about the central axis of the hull, but does not teach that an end wall of each column disposed at or proximal the second end of the hull includes at least a first portion oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the central axis of the hull to the first portion.
Adams teaches a support with a base plate 1, wherein at least a portion 2 of the end plate of the base is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with an angled portion as taught by Adams in order to “permit a slight rocking movement” (page 1, lines 84-90).
Regarding claim 17, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Finn also teaches that the first portion of the end wall of at least one column 120 engages the sea floor during (d). This will also be the case as modified by Adams.
Regarding claim 18, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Adams also teaches that each end wall includes a second portion 1 oriented parallel to the reference plane, and as modified the second portion of the end wall of each column is radially positioned between the first portion of the end wall and the central axis of the hull.
Regarding claim 19, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. As stated above, Finn does not teach that the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α. However given the teachings of Adams, the flat portion 1 of the base could be considered the center (where the anchor is mounted) while the angled portion 2 could be considered the end wall of the column, therefore as modified the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α. Note that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 20, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above. In an alternate interpretation, Finn does not teach that at least a first portion of each end wall is oriented at an acute angle a relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull. Adams teaches a support with a base plate 1, wherein at least a portion 2 of the end plate of the base is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with an angled portion as taught by Adams in order to “permit a slight rocking movement” (page 1, lines 84-90).
Regarding claim 21, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 20. Neither Finn nor Adams teach that the angle α is between 0° and 20°, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the end plate between 0° and 20° in order to allow the hull to account for environmental loads without pitching too far, resulting in failure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. As Adams teaches one angle α for the inclination of the face, as modified each angle α would be the same. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted the same in order to simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 23, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Adams also teaches that each end wall includes a second portion 1 oriented parallel to the reference plane, and as modified the second portion of the end wall of each column is radially positioned between the first portion of the end wall and the central axis of the hull.
Regarding claim 24, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. As stated above, Finn does not teach that the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α. However given the teachings of Adams, the flat portion 1 of the base could be considered the center (where the anchor is mounted) while the angled portion 2 could be considered the end wall of the column, therefore as modified the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α. Note that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 10, 11 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn US 9,758,941 in view of Baylot US 2019/0061881 and Beard US 6,343,446.
Regarding an alternate interpretation of claim 10, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Finn also teaches that each column 120 has a central axis, a first end disposed at the first end of the hull, and a second end proximal the second end of the hull; wherein each column includes a radially outer tubular wall 122 extending axially from the first end of the column to the second end of the column and an end plate 123 coupled to the outer tubular wall at the second end of the column, but does not teach that at least a portion of the end plate of each column is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull.
PNG
media_image4.png
400
258
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
400
261
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Beard Figures 2 and 11
Beard teaches an anchor system with a base 18 and radial extensions 14, wherein at least a portion 22 of the bottom of the extension is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with an angled portion as taught by Beard in order to improve the hull’s ability to drive into the ground (column 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 11, Finn, Baylot and Beard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Neither Finn nor Beard teach that the angle α is between 0° and 20°, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the end plate between 0° and 20° in order to allow the hull to account for environmental loads without pitching too far, resulting in failure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding an alternate interpretation of claim 16, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Finn also teaches that hull includes a plurality of circumferentially-spaced, parallel columns 120 disposed about the central axis of the hull, but does not teach that an end wall of each column disposed at or proximal the second end of the hull includes at least a first portion oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the central axis of the hull to the first portion.
Beard teaches an anchor system with a base 18 and radial extensions 14, wherein at least a portion 22 of the bottom of the extension is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with an angled portion as taught by Beard in order to improve the hull’s ability to drive into the ground (column 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 17, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Finn also teaches that the first portion of the end wall of at least one column 120 engages the sea floor during (d). This will also be the case as modified by Beard.
Regarding claim 18, Finn, Baylot and Beard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Beard also teaches that each end wall includes a second portion 24 oriented parallel to the reference plane, and as modified the second portion of the end wall of each column is radially positioned between the first portion of the end wall and the central axis of the hull.
Regarding claim 19, Finn, Baylot and Beard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Beard also teaches that the entire end wall 14 of each extension is oriented at the acute angle α (see Beard figure 11). Note that given the teachings of Beard, the flat portion 13 of the base could be considered the center (where the anchor is mounted) while the angled portion 14 is analogous to the end wall of the column, therefore as modified the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α.
Regarding claim 20, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above. In an alternate interpretation, Finn does not teach that at least a first portion of each end wall is oriented at an acute angle a relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hull. Beard teaches an anchor system with a base 18 and radial extensions 14, wherein at least a portion 22 of the bottom of the extension is oriented at an acute angle α relative to a reference plane oriented perpendicular to the vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with an angled portion as taught by Beard in order to improve the hull’s ability to drive into the ground (column 3, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 21, Finn, Baylot and Beard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 20. Neither Finn nor Beard teach that the angle α is between 0° and 20°, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the end plate between 0° and 20° in order to allow the hull to account for environmental loads without pitching too far, resulting in failure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Finn, Baylot and Adams teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 20. As Beard teaches one angle α for the inclination of the face, as modified each angle α would be the same. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end wall slanted the same in order to simplify manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 23, Finn, Baylot and Beard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Beard also teaches that each end wall includes a second portion 24 oriented parallel to the reference plane, and as modified the second portion of the end wall of each column is radially positioned between the first portion of the end wall and the central axis of the hull.
Regarding claim 24, Finn, Baylot and Beard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Beard also teaches that the entire end wall 14 of each extension is oriented at the acute angle α (see Beard figure 11). Note that given the teachings of Beard, the flat portion 13 of the base could be considered the center (where the anchor is mounted) while the angled portion 14 is analogous to the end wall of the column, therefore as modified the entire end wall of each column is oriented at the acute angle α.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn US 9,758,941 in view of Baylot US 2019/0061881 and Blevins US 6,206,614.
Regarding claim 12, Finn and Baylot teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. In an alternate interpretation, Finn does not teach a cell fixably coupled to the plurality of columns and positioned between the plurality of columns proximal the second end of the hull, wherein the cell has a central axis coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull; wherein the cell comprises a fixed ballast chamber; and wherein the first end of the anchor is fixably attached to the cell.
Blevins teaches an offshore platform comprising:
a plurality of columns 12;
cell 24 fixably coupled to the plurality of columns and positioned between the plurality of columns proximal the second end of the hull, wherein the cell has a central axis coaxially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the hull; and
wherein the cell comprises a fixed ballast chamber (column 3, lines 57-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base of Finn with a central ballast cell as taught by Blevins in order to ensure that all columns are solidly attached and a central ballast can act on all columns equally. Note that as modified, the first end of the anchor is fixably attached to the cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the newly added limitations pertaining to the size/ratio of the hulls to the penetration members, please see above. In this case, the established case law (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 or In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237) shows that the court has held that changes in the size or proportions of components is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed size/ratio was significant. The current application presents the desired ratios as “an embodiment,” but does not explain any particular benefits they provide. To overcome this rejection, clear criticality of this size/ratio must be explained in the disclosure as originally filed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand that a gravity anchor such as Baylot is much less complex than even the most simple suction anchor, and would understand the benefits of eliminating the reliance on an entire vacuum system in lieu of a simple, fixed mechanical implement.
In response to applicant's arguments that Adams is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, while Adams is not strictly is the field of offshore platforms, it can be considered relevant. Adams is classified in B66F3/005, which is a rocker device for uninterrupted lifting of loads under the broader banner of hoisting and lifting- which is neither tied to “furniture” nor “indoor use” as asserted by the applicant. Moreover Adams relates to the supporting of a load on a (mostly) flat surface while still permitting a slight rocking movement (page 1, lines 84-90). One of ordinary skill in the art will understand how this applies to the structure of Finn, which relates to the supporting of a load on a (mostly) flat surface while still permitting a slight rocking movement (column 2, lines 51-53).
In response to applicant's argument that “Beard’s tapers 22 serve to facilitate anchor penetration into the ground” (page 16), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage (allowing tilt) which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that tapering the entire base would allow the entire unit to sink lower into the ground, providing a more firm connection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615