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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 18-22, 25-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Baeza et al (EP 2 143 630 A1; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 1, 28, Baeza et al disclose the claimed apparatus and method including a marine environmental electrical connection apparatus (Figures 1, 8-9; note also claim 1) with a buoy 2 at least part of which when located in water projects above the surface of water, at least one mooring point 19 or 28 to which a marine vessel can be coupled, and at least one electrical power coupling 23 to which the marine vessel can be coupled such that the electrical power can be transferred via the electrical power coupling between a power generation and/or storage device 4 and the marine vessel. With respect to claims 2-6, 8, 18, note Baeza et al, steel cable 25, electric cable with connector 23, payout mechanism 26, configurations as in Figures 8-9, spring mechanism 26, the buoy 2 is hollow, unit 21 is projecting out and upwards from the buoy 2. With respect to claims 19-20, note Baeza et al, the mooring line and cable are secured to each other (note all the Figures), housing of unit 21 secures together the electric cable and the steel cable 25 with the steel cable inherently being a tension bearing element. With respect to claims 21-22, note Baeza et al, Figures 1, 8-9. With respect to claims 25-26, note Baeza et al, the other end is available to be picked up, line end above water level, note element 28. With respect to claim 29, note Baeza et al, inherent in the disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeza et al (EP 2 143 630 A1; cited by Applicant) in view of Bailey (US 2010/0227517; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 16-17, Baeza et al do not disclose a buoyant outer layer. Bailey teaches a buoy 3 with a buoyant outer layer 10 to keep the buoy above the water line. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Baeza et al with an outer buoyant layer as taught by Bailey with a high likelihood of success for improved floatation. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 30-31, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeza et al (EP 2 143 630 A1; cited by Applicant) in view of Busch (US 4648848). With respect to claims 30-31, Baeza et al do not disclose pulling a mooring vessel such that the vessel engages with an outer surface of the buoy. Busch teaches pulling a mooring vessel such that the vessel engages with an outer surface of a buoy (note Figures 1-3) with tapered walls 70, 72 and at least a portion of the mooring point being aboard the vessel (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Baeza et al with pulling a mooring vessel such that the vessel engages with an outer surface of the buoy including tapered walls and with at least a portion of the mooring point being aboard the vessel as taught by Busch with a high likelihood of success for improved mooring stability in rough seas. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
Claims 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 4, line 2, there is no antecedent basis in the claims for “the mooring line”. It appears that claim 3 should depend from claim 2 to provide basis for the mooring line in claim 4.
Claims 23-24, 27, 32-34 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 9-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moore (US 3939509) teaches a foam buoy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615