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 § 102/103
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.
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, 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Medeiros US 7,878,137 alone, or alternatively in view of Liu US 2021/0362810.
Regarding claim 1, De Medeiros teaches a system 100 for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of body 1) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly 2-6 comprising a plurality of flaps 2 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (figure 1A), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from the first positions in alternating rotational directions about respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (figure 1B) angularly spaced from the first positions; and
a follower (top of body 1) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 6-14), the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- De Medeiros Figures 1A and 1B
Please note that as taught, the follower is configured to be separated from the foundation in the set (or any) configuration, as all components can be separated under sufficient force, and no special physical characteristics are recited. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the follower detachable in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
In an alternative interpretation, Liu teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation 12 comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a flap 11 coupled to the foundation whereby the flap is configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a rotational axis associated with the flap, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which the flap occupies a first position, and a set configuration in which the flap is pivoted from the first position about the rotational axes to occupy a second position angularly spaced from the first position; and
a follower 2 extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation, the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the follower of De Medeiros with a shear pin connection as taught by Liu in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations.
Regarding claim 3, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that the plurality of flaps 2 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each rotating in opposing rotational directions between the first positions and the second positions.
Regarding claim 5, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that the plurality of flaps 2 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs spaced at an angle that is equal to or less than 180 degrees when the plurality of flaps are in their second positions.
Regarding claim 6, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that:
the system further comprises a plurality of support members 4 coupled to the foundation; and
the plurality of flaps 2 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each coupled to a separate support member of the plurality of support members.
Regarding claim 7, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that:
the keying-flap assembly 2-6 comprises one or more collars each defining a pair of opposed stop surfaces 5; and
the plurality of flaps 2 are angularly spaced from the pair of opposed stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in their first positions (figure 1A), and the plurality of flaps contact the pair of stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in the second positions (figure 1B).
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Costello US 3,187,705 alone, or alternatively in view of Liu US 2021/0362810.
Regarding claim 1, Costello teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Costello Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image2.png
299
227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a foundation (bottom of 24) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a plurality of flaps 28 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (28’), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions in alternating rotational directions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (28) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of 24) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 1-7), the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration.
Please note that as taught, the follower is configured to be separated from the foundation in the set (or any) configuration, as all components can be separated under sufficient force, and no special physical characteristics are recited. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the follower detachable in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
In an alternative interpretation, Liu teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation 12 comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a flap 11 coupled to the foundation whereby the flap is configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a rotational axis associated with the flap, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which the flap occupies a first position, and a set configuration in which the flap is pivoted from the first position about the rotational axes to occupy a second position angularly spaced from the first position; and
a follower 2 extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation, the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the follower of Costello with a shear pin connection as taught by Liu in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations.
Regarding claim 2, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Costello also teaches that the first positions (28’) of the plurality of flaps correspond to vertical positions of the plurality of flaps and the second positions (28) of the plurality of flaps correspond to inclined positions of the plurality of flaps.
Regarding claim 3, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Costello also teaches that the plurality of flaps 28 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each rotating in opposing rotational directions between the first positions and the second positions.
Regarding claim 4, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Costello also teaches that the plurality of flaps 28 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each having a Y-shaped profile when the plurality of flaps are in the second positions.
Regarding claim 5, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Costello also teaches that the plurality of flaps 28 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs spaced at an angle that is equal to or less than 180 degrees when the plurality of flaps are in the second positions.
Regarding claim 6, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Costello also teaches that:
the system further comprises a plurality of support members 29 coupled to the foundation; and
the plurality of flaps 28 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each coupled to a separate support member of the plurality of support members.
Regarding claim 8, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of 24) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a plurality of flaps 28 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (28’), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions about their respective rotational axes to occupy second positions (28) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of 24) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 1-7) whereby a first flap of the plurality of flaps applies a first torque to the foundation in a first rotational direction and a second flap of the plurality of flaps applies a second torque to the foundation in a second rotational direction that is opposite the first rotational direction, the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration.
Please note that as taught, the follower is configured to be separated from the foundation in the set (or any) configuration, as all components can be separated under sufficient force, and no special physical characteristics are recited. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the follower detachable in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
In an alternative interpretation, Liu teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation 12 comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a flap 11 coupled to the foundation whereby the flap is configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a rotational axis associated with the flap, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which the flap occupies a first position, and a set configuration in which the flap is pivoted from the first position about the rotational axes to occupy a second position angularly spaced from the first position; and
a follower 2 extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation, the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the follower of Costello with a shear pin connection as taught by Liu in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations.
Regarding claim 9, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Costello also teaches that the first torque cancels out the second torque resulting in a zero net torque applied to the foundation in response to an application of the extraction force to the foundation by the follower.
Regarding claim 10, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Costello also teaches that the first positions of the plurality of flaps 28 correspond to vertical positions of the plurality of flaps and the second positions of the plurality of flaps correspond to inclined positions of the plurality of flaps.
Regarding claim 11, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Costello also teaches that at least some of the plurality of flaps rotate in opposed rotational directions relative to others of the plurality of flaps between the first positions and the second positions.
Regarding claim 12, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Costello also teaches that from a perspective located along the longitudinal axis of the foundation, at least some of the plurality of flaps 28 pivot in a clockwise direction between the first positions and the second positions and at least some of the plurality of flaps pivot in an opposing counterclockwise direction (see Costello figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Costello also teaches that the plurality of flaps of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each rotating in opposing rotational directions between the first positions and the second positions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Medeiros US 7,878,137 alone, or alternatively also in view of Liu US 2021/0362810 and/or Costello US 3,187,705.
Regarding claim 2, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that the first positions of the plurality of flaps 2 correspond to vertical positions of the plurality of flaps, but does not teach that the second positions of the plurality of flaps correspond to inclined positions of the plurality of flaps. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the flaps inclined or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed. 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.
Alternatively, Costello teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of 24) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a plurality of flaps 28 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (28’), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions in alternating rotational directions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (28) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of 24) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 1-7);
wherein the first positions of the plurality of flaps correspond to vertical positions of the plurality of flaps and the second positions of the plurality of flaps correspond to inclined positions of the plurality of flaps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flaps of De Medeiros to be inclined when deployed as taught by Costello in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed.
Regarding claim 3, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that the plurality of flaps 2 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each rotating in opposing rotational directions between their first positions and their (second) positions, but does not teach that the second positions of the plurality of flaps correspond to inclined positions of the plurality of flaps. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the flaps inclined or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed. 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.
Alternatively, Costello teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of 24) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a plurality of flaps 28 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (28’), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions in alternating rotational directions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (28) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of 24) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flaps of De Medeiros to be inclined in the second position as taught by Costello in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed.
Regarding claim 4, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. De Medeiros also teaches that the plurality of flaps of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs, but does not teach each pair having a Y-shaped profile when the plurality of flaps are in the second positions. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the flaps Y-shaped or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed. 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.
Alternatively, Costello teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of 24) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a plurality of flaps 28 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (28’), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions in alternating rotational directions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (28) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of 24) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flaps of De Medeiros to be Y-shaped in the second position as taught by Costello in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed.
Regarding claim 8, De Medeiros teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of body 1) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly 2-6 comprising a plurality of flaps 2 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (figure 1A), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (figure 1B) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of body 1) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower being separable from and configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 6-14) whereby a first flap of the plurality of flaps applies a first torque to the foundation in a first rotational direction and a second flap of the plurality of flaps applies a second torque to the foundation in a second rotational direction that is opposite the first rotational direction, the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration.
Please note that as taught, the follower is configured to be separated from the foundation in the set (or any) configuration, as all components can be separated under sufficient force, and no special physical characteristics are recited. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the follower detachable in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
In an alternative interpretation, Liu teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation 12 comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a flap 11 coupled to the foundation whereby the flap is configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a rotational axis associated with the flap, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which the flap occupies a first position, and a set configuration in which the flap is pivoted from the first position about the rotational axes to occupy a second position angularly spaced from the first position; and
a follower 2 extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation, the follower configured to be separated from the foundation in the set configuration [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the follower of De Medeiros with a shear pin connection as taught by Liu in order to simplify assembly, maintenance and/or provide for quick detachment in emergency situations.
De Medeiros does not teach that the second positions are inclined. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the flaps inclined or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed. 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.
Alternatively, Costello teaches a system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of 24) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly comprising a plurality of flaps 28 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (28’), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of inclined positions (28) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of 24) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 1-7) whereby a first flap of the plurality of flaps applies a first torque to the foundation in a first rotational direction and a second flap of the plurality of flaps applies a second torque to the foundation in a second rotational direction that is opposite the first rotational direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flaps of De Medeiros to be inclined in the second position as taught by Costello in order to provide maximum gripping of the seabed.
Regarding claim 9, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros also teaches that the first torque cancels out the second torque resulting in a zero net torque applied to the foundation in response to an application of the extraction force to the foundation by the follower.
Regarding claim 10, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros alone or in view of Costello also teaches that the first positions of the plurality of flaps 2 correspond to vertical positions of the plurality of flaps and the second positions of the plurality of flaps correspond to inclined positions of the plurality of flaps.
Regarding claim 11, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros also teaches that at least some of the plurality of flaps 2 rotate in opposed rotational directions relative to others of the plurality of flaps between the first positions and the second positions.
Regarding claim 12, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros also teaches that from a perspective located along the longitudinal axis of the foundation, at least some of the plurality of flaps 2 pivot in a clockwise direction between the first positions and the second positions and at least some of the plurality of flaps pivot in an opposing counterclockwise direction.
Regarding claim 13, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros also teaches that the plurality of flaps 2 of the keying-flap assembly are grouped into one or more flap pairs each rotating in opposing rotational directions between the first positions and the second positions.
Regarding claim 14, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros also teaches that the keying-flap assembly 2-6 comprises one or more collars 5 each defining a pair of opposed stop surfaces; and the plurality of flaps 2 are angularly spaced from the pair of stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in their first positions, and the plurality of flaps contact the pair of stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in their second positions.
Regarding claim 15, De Medeiros alone or in view of Liu and/or Costello teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros does not teach a vessel. Costello teaches an offshore vessel comprising
the anchoring system;
a deck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of De Medeiros with a vessel and deck as taught by Costello in order to provide effective anchoring to an active vessel.
Neither De Medeiros nor Costello explicitly teach a winch assembly supported on the deck and connected to the system of claim 8 by one or more tension cables extending between the winch assembly and the foundation of the system of claim 8, the winch assembly comprising one or more winches and a surface controller configured to automatically confirm the transitioning of the keying-flap assembly into the set configuration in response to monitoring a magnitude of the extraction force applied to the foundation by the follower. However, the winch and controller are merely an automated means of using the anchor, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to automate the process of using the anchoring system in order to reduce tasks the crew must perform manually, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello US 3,187,705 in view of De Medeiros US 7,878,137, together or also in view of Liu US 2021/0362810.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Costello does not teach that the keying-flap assembly comprises one or more collars each defining a pair of opposed stop surfaces; and the plurality of flaps are angularly spaced from the pair of opposed stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in their first positions, and the plurality of flaps contact the pair of stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in the second positions.
De Medeiros teaches a system 100 for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed positioned beneath a column of water, the system comprising:
a foundation (bottom of body 1) comprising a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis of the foundation;
a keying-flap assembly 2-6 comprising a plurality of flaps 2 coupled to the foundation whereby the plurality of flaps are configured to pivot relative to the foundation about a plurality of rotational axes associated with the plurality of flaps, the keying-flap assembly having a run-in configuration in which each of the plurality of flaps occupies a first position (figure 1A), and a set configuration in which the plurality of flaps are pivoted from their first positions in alternating rotational directions about their respective rotational axes to occupy a plurality of second positions (figure 1B) angularly spaced from their first positions; and
a follower (top of body 1) extending between a first end and a second end opposite the first end of the follower, the follower configured to apply an extraction force to the foundation to transition the keying-flap assembly from the run-in configuration to the set configuration (column 3, lines 6-14);
the keying-flap assembly comprises one or more collars each defining a pair of opposed stop surfaces 5; and
the plurality of flaps 2 are angularly spaced from the pair of stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in their first positions (figure 1A), and the plurality of flaps contact the pair of stop surfaces of the one or more collars when the plurality of flaps are in their second positions (figure 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flaps of Costello with flap stops on the collar as taught by De Medeiros in order to ensure the flaps stay in the optimal position when deployed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Medeiros US 7,878,137 in view of Costello US 3,187,705 and “Anchoring Your Boat” from Boat-Ed (hereafter “Boat-Ed”) and/or alternatively also Hine US 10,640,180 and/or Liu US 2021/0362810.
Regarding claim 15, De Medeiros alone or in view of Costello and/or Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. De Medeiros does not teach a vessel. Costello teaches an offshore vessel comprising
the anchoring system;
a deck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of De Medeiros with a vessel and deck as taught by Costello in order to provide effective anchoring to an active vessel.
Neither De Medeiros nor Costello explicitly teach a winch assembly supported on the deck and connected to the system of claim 8 by one or more tension cables extending between the winch assembly and the foundation of the system of claim 8, the winch assembly comprising one or more winches and a surface controller configured to automatically confirm the transitioning of the keying-flap assembly into the set configuration in response to monitoring a magnitude of the extraction force applied to the foundation by the follower. However, the winch and controller are merely an automated means of using the anchor, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to automate the process of using the anchoring system in order to reduce tasks the crew must perform manually, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Boat-Ed teaches that to anchor a boat, one must “pull on the anchor line to make sure the anchor is set” (point 4), the point being to see if the resistance is great enough. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a controller of the system of De Medeiros to check if the anchor is engaged by pulling as taught by Boat-Ed in order to ensure that the anchor is sufficiently engaged with the sea floor.
Alternatively, Hine teaches a marine vehicle with a winch for retrieving remote components, wherein the winch comprises a controller and force-sensing switch such that the controller confirms that the remote component is engaged via an increase in winch force magnitude (column 6 line 55- column 7 line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of De Medeiros with a winch that uses force to detect engagement as taught by Hine in order to automatically confirm when the anchor is engaged.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costello US 3,187,705 in view of “Anchoring Your Boat” from Boat-Ed (hereafter “Boat-Ed”) and/or alternatively also Hine US 10,640,180 and/or Liu US 2021/0362810.
Regarding claim 15, Costello alone or in view of Liu teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Costello also teaches an offshore vessel comprising
the anchoring system; and
a deck.
Costello does not explicitly teach a winch assembly supported on the deck and connected to the system of claim 8 by one or more tension cables extending between the winch assembly and the foundation of the system of claim 8, the winch assembly comprising one or more winches and a surface controller configured to automatically confirm the transitioning of the keying-flap assembly into the set configuration in response to monitoring a magnitude of the extraction force applied to the foundation by the follower. However, the winch and controller are merely an automated means of using the anchor, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to automate the process of using the anchoring system in order to reduce tasks the crew must perform manually, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Boat-Ed teaches that to anchor a boat, one must “pull on the anchor line to make sure the anchor is set” (point 4), the point being to see if the resistance is great enough. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify a controller of the system of Costello to check if the anchor is engaged by pulling as taught by Boat-Ed in order to ensure that the anchor is sufficiently engaged with the sea floor.
Alternatively, Hine teaches a marine vehicle with a winch for retrieving remote components, wherein the winch comprises a controller and force-sensing switch such that the controller confirms that the remote component is engaged via an increase in winch force magnitude (column 6 line 55- column 7 line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Costello with a winch that uses force to detect engagement as taught by Hine in order to automatically confirm when the anchor is engaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please note that (as detailed above) reciting that any two components are “configured to be separated” does not impart any particular structural limitations, as any two components can be separated. However, to promote compact prosecution, Liu has been relied upon to teach separable anchoring components.
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 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
Prosecution Insights