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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3, 6, 19, 20 and 23-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/3/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the contain improper shading and are of poor quality, likely due to a poor transmission. For example, figure 2A is largely a featureless black square, while figure 5 is completely indecipherable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valtanen US 2016/0083052.
Regarding claim 8, Valtanen discloses a floating platform 300, comprising:
a plurality of floating chambers, wherein each floating chamber comprises at least three containers 100 filled with air trapped within each container, each container having a door at a first end and an opposing panel at a second end (see figures 1-3), the containers being placed one above or aside another such that the door of one container is connected to the opposing panel of another one of the at least three containers.
PNG
media_image1.png
195
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Valtanen Figure 3
Regarding claim 18, Valtanen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Valtanen also discloses a plurality of interconnected megastructures, each megastructure comprising a plurality of floating chambers interconnected to form layers of containers.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valtanen US 2016/0083052.
Regarding claim 18, Valtanen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. In an alternate interpretation, Valtanen does not teach a plurality of interconnected megastructures, each megastructure comprising a plurality of floating chambers interconnected to form layers of containers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional floating chambers in order to create a larger megastructure capable of supporting a greater load, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 9, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valtanen US 2016/0083052 in view of Shepherd US 4,263,862.
Regarding claim 9, Valtanen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Valtanen does not teach reinforced concrete that fills spaces formed between the at least three containers. Shepherd teaches a large floating structure that comprises a plurality of buoyant elements 32 surrounded by a reinforced concrete exterior that fills spaces formed between the buoyant elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Valtanen by filling spaces between the containers (and the exterior) with reinforced concrete as taught by Shepherd in order to create a stronger structure, provide greater damage tolerance or create a smoother exterior.
PNG
media_image2.png
358
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Shepherd Figure 2
Regarding claim 10, Valtanen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Valtanen does not teach reinforced concrete that partially surrounds each of the plurality of the floating chambers to form a floating concrete structure. Shepherd teaches a large floating structure that comprises a plurality of buoyant elements 32 surrounded by a reinforced concrete to form a floating concrete structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Valtanen by coating the containers with reinforced concrete as taught by Shepherd in order to create a stronger structure, provide greater damage tolerance or create a smoother exterior.
Regarding claim 14, Valtanen and Shepherd teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches that the reinforced concrete comprises an iron mesh or net (column 4, lines 61-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Valtanen by coating the containers with steel mesh reinforced concrete as taught by Shepherd in order to create a stronger structure, provide greater damage tolerance or create a smoother exterior. Note that if applicant does not agree that Shepherd teaches steel mesh, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize steel for the mesh in order to use an available and proven material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 15, Valtanen and Shepherd teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Valtanen also teaches that the floating chambers of the plurality of the floating chambers are connected to one another with interlocking beams 201, 202, 203 in between the floating chambers.
Regarding claim 17, Valtanen and Shepherd teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches a reinforced light material admixed with the concrete or embedded within the reinforced concrete (a lightweight aggregate can be used, column 4, lines 53-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Valtanen by coating the containers with lightweight aggregate concrete as taught by Shepherd in order to reduce overall vessel weight.
Regarding claim 29, Valtanen and Shepherd teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches that a thickness of outer sides of the concrete structure is greater than a gap between adjacent containers within the floating chambers. Please see Shepherd figure 2- at least some gap areas between containers are thinner than the exterior coating. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the coating of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to minimize weight while maintaining desired strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valtanen US 2016/0083052 in view of Figari US 3,913,336.
Regarding claim 10, Valtanen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Valtanen does not teach that the floating platform comprises an airstrip. Figari teaches a floating platform formed from a plurality of connected floating assemblies which comprises an airstrip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Valtanen by including an airstrip as taught by Figari in order to increase the versatility of the platform and allow greater logistical coordination options.
Claims 8-10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd US 4,263,862 in view of Valtanen US 2016/0083052.
Regarding claim 8, Shepherd teaches a floating platform 10, comprising:
a plurality of floating chambers, wherein each floating chamber comprises at least three containers 32 filled with air trapped within each container, the containers being placed one above or aside another.
Shepherd does not teach each container having a door at a first end and an opposing panel at a second end, the containers being placed one above or aside another such that the door of one container is connected to the opposing panel of another one of the at least three containers. Valtanen teaches a floating platform 300, comprising:
a plurality of floating chambers, wherein each floating chamber comprises at least three containers 100 filled with air trapped within each container, each container having a door at a first end and an opposing panel at a second end (see figures 1-3), the containers being placed one above or aside another such that the door of one container is connected to the opposing panel of another one of the at least three containers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Shepherd by utilizing containers as taught by Valtanen in order to make use of ready-made, commercially available, sturdy containers. If applicant does not agree about the number of containers/chambers, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional floating chambers in order to create a larger megastructure capable of supporting a greater load, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Shepherd also teaches a reinforced concrete exterior that fills spaces formed between the buoyant elements/containers.
Regarding claim 10, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Shepherd also teaches reinforced concrete that partially surrounds each of the plurality of the floating chambers to form a floating concrete structure.
Regarding claim 14, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches that the reinforced concrete comprises an iron mesh or net (column 4, lines 61-66). that the reinforced concrete comprises an iron mesh or net (column 4, lines 61-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Valtanen by coating the containers with steel mesh reinforced concrete as taught by Shepherd in order to create a stronger structure, provide greater damage tolerance or create a smoother exterior. Note that if applicant does not agree that Shepherd teaches steel mesh, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize steel for the mesh in order to use an available and proven material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Note that if applicant does not agree that Shepherd teaches steel mesh, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize steel for the mesh in order to use an available and proven material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 15, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches that the floating chambers of the plurality of the floating chambers are connected to one another with interlocking beams 26, 36 in between the floating chambers. In an alternative interpretation, Valtanen also teaches that the floating chambers of the plurality of the floating chambers are connected to one another with interlocking beams 201, 202, 203 in between the floating chambers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Shepherd by connecting the containers with interlocking beams as taught by Valtanen in order to create a stronger structure and/or relieve strain on the concrete coating.
Regarding claim 17, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches a reinforced light material admixed with the concrete or embedded within the reinforced concrete (a lightweight aggregate can be used, column 4, lines 53-60).
Regarding claim 18, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Shepard and Valtanen also teach a plurality of interconnected megastructures, each megastructure comprising a plurality of floating chambers interconnected to form layers of containers. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional floating chambers in order to create a larger megastructure capable of supporting a greater load, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 29, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Shepherd also teaches that a thickness of outer sides of the concrete structure is greater than a gap between adjacent containers within the floating chambers. Please see Shepherd figure 2- at least some gap areas between containers are thinner than the exterior coating. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the coating of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to minimize weight while maintaining desired strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd US 4,263,862 in view of Valtanen US 2016/0083052 and Figari US 3,913,336.
Regarding claim 10, Shepherd and Valtanen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Shepherd does not teach that the floating platform comprises an airstrip. Figari teaches a floating platform formed from a plurality of connected floating assemblies which comprises an airstrip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Shepherd by including an airstrip as taught by Figari in order to increase the versatility of the platform and allow greater logistical coordination options.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sluys US 4,318,361, Wittenberg US 9,580,156, Derby US 5,927,227 and Baxter US 5,215,027 teach floating platforms which comprise concrete formed around a buoyant core element.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615